5 ms·

I'm actually thrilled about this idea, and I hope it spreads to other cities. The key to effective mass transit is not the type of equipment (train vs. bus) or

I'm actually thrilled about this idea, and I hope it spreads to other cities. The key to effective mass transit is not the type of equipment (train vs. bus) or the surface (rails vs. asphalt). It is the right-of-way, plain and simple. All other things being equal, a transport that has right-of-way, unimpeded by cross traffic, will be faster than a transport that has to deal with stop lights, cross traffic, etc. That being said, mass transit can be extremely expensive if you take too many pains to construct the right of way off the surface. Digging is expensive and dangerous. Building elevated platforms is also more expensive, and often unsightly. Now let's compare the means of traction: rails provide only fixed paths. They're relatively time-consuming to fix if they break. And if there's an equipment breakdown, if there aren't redundant paths with effective switching, it can cause a head-of-line blocking problem (comparable to a message queue). Meanwhile, tires are cheap and safe, while steering can easily avoid obstacles and other dangers. And repairing asphalt streets is relatively inexpensive. So: we have good road technology. We have wide-enough arterial roads, many of which are already redundant. We have good-enough signaling technology now to create a virtual right-of-way (by setting lights to red before the vehicle crosses). Buses are pretty reliable these days, and far cheaper to manufacture than train cars. They can also be outfitted to be quite nice inside. So, to me, dedicated bus thoroughfares using existing streets are a no-brainer. They win on cost, they win on effectiveness, and they win on time-to-market. I can totally see 1 out of every 4 streets being used in major cities as dedicated bus thoroughfares as a viable alternative to building super-expensive and relatively unreliable transit alternatives. I've often said I'd love to see it happen in San Francisco. (The 1-in-4 idea being an approximation for most people to walk to their ultimate destination in a reasonable amount of time, but it's obviously adjustable according to block size, geography, etc.) (Footnote: for those who maintain residences on the impacted streets, there should be various accessibility exceptions.)

couchand 7y ago
Bus rapid transit is a powerful tool to have available for transportation planning. As you mention, it's a relatively simple and cheap proposition to upgrade from a street. But it's not reasonable to say it's "the right-of-way, plain and simple". Light rail is significantly more energy-efficient than buses, a factor that must be taken into account in an honest evaluation of the options.
- otterley 7y ago
  1. Light rail is far more expensive to build; and if it's electric powered (overhead or third rail), the infrastructure must be provisioned. I'd be incredibly surprised if the energy savings over the depreciation period of a bus or rail coach fleet, added to the opportunity cost paid by riders waiting for the construction, paid for the difference. Also, a light rail option that doesn't have right of way is far worse (economically speaking) and will be far less popular than a bus fleet that does. VTA, which features the worst of both worlds (the speed of a bus in city traffic with the cost and inflexibility of a fixed electric light rail) in Santa Clara county, is incredibly unpopular. 2. As we move towards renewable energy sources like wind, geothermal, and solar, electric buses, powered by stored-energy batteries, become arguably "good enough". But that's less an energy-efficiency concern (although these are close to "free" after fixed costs have been paid) and more of a pollution concern.
  - couchand 7y ago
    Your general points are reasonable, but the arguments you're making are absurd. > the opportunity cost paid by riders waiting for the construction There is absolutely no reason that a city can't deploy a BRT system in the short-term while building the light rail. This is in fact a common strategy. > a light rail option that doesn't have right of way is far worse (economically speaking) and will be far less popular than a bus fleet that does. I agree that right-of-way is important, you are attacking a straw man. > electric buses, powered by stored-energy batteries, become arguably "good enough". But that's less an energy-efficiency concern Energy efficiency will always be a concern, regardless of the method of generation. But! It's significantly easier today to deploy light rail powered by renewable sources than a comparable bus system. Today the gold standard for buses is CNG, which, while much less polluting than gasoline, is still a non-renewable resource.
    - asdff 7y ago
      LADOT is rolling out electric buses already to test them on certain routes at least. Personally I think light rail is a stop gap measure. Light rail in LA is slow and crowded and you can only make stations so long which limits how many cars you can have on a train. Running it at grade doesn't help either and limits the minimum headway that the system can achieve. Heavy rail is a better option. It's faster and transports more people at once than any BRT or LRT, and is costlier of course. But as they say, the fool pays twice.
zaroth 7y ago
> I can totally see 1 out of every 4 streets being used in major cities as dedicated bus thoroughfares as a viable alternative to building super-expensive and relatively unreliable transit alternatives. Of course that would itself be incredibly expensive. Roughly 1/4 the cost of all the roads in a city is a tremendously large amount of asphalt to maintain exclusively for buses. The local businesses will also really enjoy being derelicted.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Then how is it that businesses always seem to do better after city streets around them are pedestrianised? For me 1/4 and 3/4 is the wrong balance, as it's too car friendly and makes no mention of trams and light rail.
- esoterica 7y ago
  How many people do you think are driving to a Manhattan restaurant or bar? Only 22% of Manhattan households own a car.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Because taxis and Uber’s aren’t a thing? I’ll grant you that if there’s anywhere in the US the harm to local business would be minimized, it would be Manhattan. But the policy was being suggested for a lot more than just Manhattan.
- otterley 7y ago
  I’m operating under the assumption that the roads in question are already built and that the ongoing cost to maintain them is identical or less than the ongoing cost to maintain them if they were open to all traffic. In other words, no worse than the status quo.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    That doesn’t actually change the cost of the policy. Repurposing an asset you spent $X to build is the same as spending $X on a new asset for that purpose, minus any depreciation you took up till that point. To your point, if road costs continue to be the status quo, then 1/4 of what you spent on roads should now be covered by bus fares. That would make the buses impossibly expensive. I’m sure that people who like riding public transit buses would love this policy, because your taking an already highly subsidized (loss leading) form of transportation and making it an order of magnitude more subsidized by giving them free private roads to ride on.
Traster 7y ago
Oxford Street (London's busiest shopping street) is closed to normal traffic - buses (and stupid exceptions) only. It's still massively busy with buses. At any given time I'd estimate you'd be within eyesight on 8 buses at least.
- otterley 7y ago
  That tells me there aren’t enough such thoroughfares in London, so they’re being funneled from other streets to Oxford St. Also IIRC (it’s been a while since I was last there) the buses don’t yet have right-of-way through the intersections.

couchand 7y ago

Bus rapid transit is a powerful tool to have available for transportation planning. As you mention, it's a relatively simple and cheap proposition to upgrade from a street. But it's not reasonable to say it's "the right-of-way, plain and simple". Light rail is significantly more energy-efficient than buses, a factor that must be taken into account in an honest evaluation of the options.

otterley 7y ago
1. Light rail is far more expensive to build; and if it's electric powered (overhead or third rail), the infrastructure must be provisioned. I'd be incredibly surprised if the energy savings over the depreciation period of a bus or rail coach fleet, added to the opportunity cost paid by riders waiting for the construction, paid for the difference. Also, a light rail option that doesn't have right of way is far worse (economically speaking) and will be far less popular than a bus fleet that does. VTA, which features the worst of both worlds (the speed of a bus in city traffic with the cost and inflexibility of a fixed electric light rail) in Santa Clara county, is incredibly unpopular. 2. As we move towards renewable energy sources like wind, geothermal, and solar, electric buses, powered by stored-energy batteries, become arguably "good enough". But that's less an energy-efficiency concern (although these are close to "free" after fixed costs have been paid) and more of a pollution concern.
- couchand 7y ago
  Your general points are reasonable, but the arguments you're making are absurd. > the opportunity cost paid by riders waiting for the construction There is absolutely no reason that a city can't deploy a BRT system in the short-term while building the light rail. This is in fact a common strategy. > a light rail option that doesn't have right of way is far worse (economically speaking) and will be far less popular than a bus fleet that does. I agree that right-of-way is important, you are attacking a straw man. > electric buses, powered by stored-energy batteries, become arguably "good enough". But that's less an energy-efficiency concern Energy efficiency will always be a concern, regardless of the method of generation. But! It's significantly easier today to deploy light rail powered by renewable sources than a comparable bus system. Today the gold standard for buses is CNG, which, while much less polluting than gasoline, is still a non-renewable resource.
  - asdff 7y ago
    LADOT is rolling out electric buses already to test them on certain routes at least. Personally I think light rail is a stop gap measure. Light rail in LA is slow and crowded and you can only make stations so long which limits how many cars you can have on a train. Running it at grade doesn't help either and limits the minimum headway that the system can achieve. Heavy rail is a better option. It's faster and transports more people at once than any BRT or LRT, and is costlier of course. But as they say, the fool pays twice.

zaroth 7y ago

> I can totally see 1 out of every 4 streets being used in major cities as dedicated bus thoroughfares as a viable alternative to building super-expensive and relatively unreliable transit alternatives. Of course that would itself be incredibly expensive. Roughly 1/4 the cost of all the roads in a city is a tremendously large amount of asphalt to maintain exclusively for buses. The local businesses will also really enjoy being derelicted.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Then how is it that businesses always seem to do better after city streets around them are pedestrianised? For me 1/4 and 3/4 is the wrong balance, as it's too car friendly and makes no mention of trams and light rail.
esoterica 7y ago
How many people do you think are driving to a Manhattan restaurant or bar? Only 22% of Manhattan households own a car.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Because taxis and Uber’s aren’t a thing? I’ll grant you that if there’s anywhere in the US the harm to local business would be minimized, it would be Manhattan. But the policy was being suggested for a lot more than just Manhattan.
otterley 7y ago
I’m operating under the assumption that the roads in question are already built and that the ongoing cost to maintain them is identical or less than the ongoing cost to maintain them if they were open to all traffic. In other words, no worse than the status quo.
- zaroth 7y ago
  That doesn’t actually change the cost of the policy. Repurposing an asset you spent $X to build is the same as spending $X on a new asset for that purpose, minus any depreciation you took up till that point. To your point, if road costs continue to be the status quo, then 1/4 of what you spent on roads should now be covered by bus fares. That would make the buses impossibly expensive. I’m sure that people who like riding public transit buses would love this policy, because your taking an already highly subsidized (loss leading) form of transportation and making it an order of magnitude more subsidized by giving them free private roads to ride on.

Traster 7y ago

Oxford Street (London's busiest shopping street) is closed to normal traffic - buses (and stupid exceptions) only. It's still massively busy with buses. At any given time I'd estimate you'd be within eyesight on 8 buses at least.

otterley 7y ago
That tells me there aren’t enough such thoroughfares in London, so they’re being funneled from other streets to Oxford St. Also IIRC (it’s been a while since I was last there) the buses don’t yet have right-of-way through the intersections.