2 ms·

Buses have many advantages over subways, especially over trains running at street level (since these can't go much faster than traffic). That's not necessarily

Buses have many advantages over subways, especially over trains running at street level (since these can't go much faster than traffic). That's not necessarily so. Trams (streetcars) in cities, which have old tram networks usually segregate the lines from the parts of the street where privat traffic runs. Very often they also receive signalling priority and while blockage by cars can happen (especially on intersections) trams can run with a quite reliable time table. I live in a city with one of the - arguably - best public transport systems at least outside of Japan. If anything runs in unreliable intervals (as you learn over announcemets while sitting in a tram) it's bus lines. Now, if you just build some light rail on an existing road as often happens because public transport is chic nowadays then you run exactly into the problem you describe. But dedicated tram networks are very different and quite reliable.

joe_the_user 7y ago
I read this argument last time so the passage you quote actually take your argument into account. Sure, street level trains can go somewhat faster than cars but not a whole lot. Contrast that Elevated or underground lines, which can go much faster, have express trains and so-forth. The OP makes a great argument that buses plus medium rail/subways/etc is much better combination to add to a city. I think that argument has to be made more loudly, for the other reason - US planners are bad, if there's a to force them to be better it should be taken. Maybe really smart people do light rail well but the US city doesn't deserve to be trusted to do that.
- chao- 7y ago
  Houston, a city proud to be without zoning, and where being a "city planner" is barely a notch above a registered sex offender (I wish I were joking), has just voted for the third time to expand LRT transit, and expand Rapid Bus lines, and improve the quality of its bus stops, in a $3.5BB bond measure. https://www.khou.com/article/traffic/metro-houston-approves-35b-bond-measure-for-november-ballot/285-3c68ecd2-8bbc-4588-9e9a-8cecd62c3edd https://www.khou.com/article/traffic/metro-houston-approves-... On the other side of things, Austin may get a third crack at approving an LRT system next year, but the last two times Austin voters disapproved of LRT. As a result they have a weird heavy commuter rail that runs on a strange schedule, goes almost nowhere, and does not serve the people well.

joe_the_user 7y ago

I read this argument last time so the passage you quote actually take your argument into account. Sure, street level trains can go somewhat faster than cars but not a whole lot. Contrast that Elevated or underground lines, which can go much faster, have express trains and so-forth. The OP makes a great argument that buses plus medium rail/subways/etc is much better combination to add to a city. I think that argument has to be made more loudly, for the other reason - US planners are bad, if there's a to force them to be better it should be taken. Maybe really smart people do light rail well but the US city doesn't deserve to be trusted to do that.

chao- 7y ago
Houston, a city proud to be without zoning, and where being a "city planner" is barely a notch above a registered sex offender (I wish I were joking), has just voted for the third time to expand LRT transit, and expand Rapid Bus lines, and improve the quality of its bus stops, in a $3.5BB bond measure. https://www.khou.com/article/traffic/metro-houston-approves-35b-bond-measure-for-november-ballot/285-3c68ecd2-8bbc-4588-9e9a-8cecd62c3edd https://www.khou.com/article/traffic/metro-houston-approves-... On the other side of things, Austin may get a third crack at approving an LRT system next year, but the last two times Austin voters disapproved of LRT. As a result they have a weird heavy commuter rail that runs on a strange schedule, goes almost nowhere, and does not serve the people well.