4 ms·

Busses are very slow compared to any subway. Even with dedicated lanes (which is costly and unpopular) they still need to go around obstacles like buildings, fo

by corty 6y ago

Busses are very slow compared to any subway. Even with dedicated lanes (which is costly and unpopular) they still need to go around obstacles like buildings, follow the roads, yield to pedestrians, pull into stops, etc. Speed limits need to be obeyed as well. Compare that to a subway that just goes below most obstacles in a straight line, travels at >80km/h and usually has no places to yield whatsoever. Fast travel in a predictable way, independent of traffic, weather, whatever. Maybe rush hour will make getting into the subway a little slower, but that's about it. Subway is far superior to everything, including trams and trains for urban environments. It is expensive to build however, which is why in Europe it is usually supplemented with trams and busses for outlying routes or to fill the gaps between tunnels. Flexibility is rather a minus actually, because it leads to bus routes being subject to "snaking" through neighborhoods to satisfy the occasional political whim. Planted 5 trees and a bench? Call it "Mayour Mueller Park", add a bus stop with a 5min detour. Lather, rinse, repeat. Subways are somewhat immune to that.

supertrope 6y ago
An interesting in-between is a transitway (bus only road). Very nearly as fast as a subway due also only stopping at stations and only being delayed by other mass transit vehicles. Obviously cheaper than tunneling or elevated railways if the land is available.
- corty 6y ago
  That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that. And even if it were, land prices are high enough that tunneling costs start to look cheap.
  - ginko 6y ago
    >That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that Bus/Taxi-only lanes are pretty common actually.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    One of the densest cities in the world is Jakarta, Indonesia. (They actually don't build new roads, just widen them basically, or add expensive toll roads between cities.) They built a central busway several years ago by taking away one lane of pavement from existing traffic. That sounds terrible, but when I say dense, I mean ant-colony dense. Any method to increase to more than 1 or 2 occupants per vehicle was a huge win. It didn't work very well at first since the busway lane wasn't separated from other lanes, so car drivers would "poach" that lane too. But after it was fenced off, it works ok now. They're also completing some type of rail system, but it wasn't yet open when I was there last year, though the stations existed. Again, because anything that can be done for mass transit with that density is a win. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried helicopters next. :)
vmarsy 6y ago
> Even with dedicated lanes (which is costly and unpopular) they still need to go around obstacles like buildings, follow the roads, yield to pedestrians, pull into stops, etc. Speed limits need to be obeyed as well. In this case, Buses can drive in the underground tunnels that were built for this subway, can't they? Seattle did it for many years until they replaced it with trains: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etT_wVuKy_I https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etT_wVuKy_I In that case, the only thing slowing down the bus is speed limits, which are probably a bit lower than a train, since train would be safe on rails, but still I wonder why they didn't use that given that the tunnels are here and in good condition
- munk-a 6y ago
  I'm a bit confused what benefits buses have at that point - you would need to dig a dedicated subway tunnel (and maybe spend additional to widen the tunnel so that buses can navigate it more easily) so you're out all the construction costs - you're just using a vehicle that has the ability (which you've now restricted) to more freely change routes... one that probably suffers higher maintenance costs over subway cars... and one that might be more difficult to electrify. I think running buses in subway tunnels is just someone's creative idea to attempt to sabotage having reliable mass transit so that ridership doesn't get too high and they can argue that the whole program should be cut a few years down the line.
  - vmarsy 6y ago
    > you would need to dig a dedicated subway tunnel The tunnels and their exits next to interstate highway already exist per the article, so at this point the construction costs are assumed to be negligible (compared to a "$2.6 billion and take thirty years to build" system quoted in [1]) it would be used exactly like it was in Seattle: as a shortcut through the city for some routes. The bus retains all its advantages outside the tunnel, it's basically an underground dedicated bus lane. If really popular then it can get upgraded to a real train, like it was done in Seattle. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway

by corty 6y ago

supertrope 6y ago

An interesting in-between is a transitway (bus only road). Very nearly as fast as a subway due also only stopping at stations and only being delayed by other mass transit vehicles. Obviously cheaper than tunneling or elevated railways if the land is available.

corty 6y ago
That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that. And even if it were, land prices are high enough that tunneling costs start to look cheap.
- ginko 6y ago
  >That would be a no-go in most of Europe. Cities are too dense, so there is just no land available for that Bus/Taxi-only lanes are pretty common actually.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  One of the densest cities in the world is Jakarta, Indonesia. (They actually don't build new roads, just widen them basically, or add expensive toll roads between cities.) They built a central busway several years ago by taking away one lane of pavement from existing traffic. That sounds terrible, but when I say dense, I mean ant-colony dense. Any method to increase to more than 1 or 2 occupants per vehicle was a huge win. It didn't work very well at first since the busway lane wasn't separated from other lanes, so car drivers would "poach" that lane too. But after it was fenced off, it works ok now. They're also completing some type of rail system, but it wasn't yet open when I was there last year, though the stations existed. Again, because anything that can be done for mass transit with that density is a win. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried helicopters next. :)

vmarsy 6y ago

> Even with dedicated lanes (which is costly and unpopular) they still need to go around obstacles like buildings, follow the roads, yield to pedestrians, pull into stops, etc. Speed limits need to be obeyed as well. In this case, Buses can drive in the underground tunnels that were built for this subway, can't they? Seattle did it for many years until they replaced it with trains: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etT_wVuKy_I https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etT_wVuKy_I In that case, the only thing slowing down the bus is speed limits, which are probably a bit lower than a train, since train would be safe on rails, but still I wonder why they didn't use that given that the tunnels are here and in good condition

munk-a 6y ago
I'm a bit confused what benefits buses have at that point - you would need to dig a dedicated subway tunnel (and maybe spend additional to widen the tunnel so that buses can navigate it more easily) so you're out all the construction costs - you're just using a vehicle that has the ability (which you've now restricted) to more freely change routes... one that probably suffers higher maintenance costs over subway cars... and one that might be more difficult to electrify. I think running buses in subway tunnels is just someone's creative idea to attempt to sabotage having reliable mass transit so that ridership doesn't get too high and they can argue that the whole program should be cut a few years down the line.
- vmarsy 6y ago
  > you would need to dig a dedicated subway tunnel The tunnels and their exits next to interstate highway already exist per the article, so at this point the construction costs are assumed to be negligible (compared to a "$2.6 billion and take thirty years to build" system quoted in [1]) it would be used exactly like it was in Seattle: as a shortcut through the city for some routes. The bus retains all its advantages outside the tunnel, it's basically an underground dedicated bus lane. If really popular then it can get upgraded to a real train, like it was done in Seattle. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway