4 ms·

Bus Rapid Transit is another option that could be amazing (while being much cheaper to implement), but it falls short for the same reason as trains: they requir

by nunez 6mo ago

Bus Rapid Transit is another option that could be amazing (while being much cheaper to implement), but it falls short for the same reason as trains: they require dedicated infrastructure that complicates driving, and complicating driving is political suicide.

Schiendelman 6mo ago
One of the things I found when advocating for transit was that BRT cost savings in the US almost always come from reducing quality at stations, which loses public support faster than you save money. I found that voters are usually willing to spend far more on trains than on BRT, in excess of any savings.
- nunez 6mo ago
  Wow; that's surprising.
  - Schiendelman 6mo ago
    People vote with their gut. Their gut tells them that buses are terrible and trains are generally good. They're right.
  - HDThoreaun 6mo ago
    People have buses. Makes them feel poor. Trains feel sophisticated.
dzhiurgis 6mo ago
BRT is mostly "you get what you pay for" - cheaper at a cost of lower capacity. Given relatively low density of US cities - that might be the right tool tho.
- rsynnott 6mo ago
  One thing you have to be careful about with things like this is induced demand. In Dublin in the early 90s, there was a debate about what to do with the right of way of an old commuter rail line, which had been closed in the 60s when closing rail lines was fashionable. Irish Rail wanted to reinstate the commuter rail line, Dublin Bus wanted to build a BRT system. In the early noughties, the transport authority split the difference and put in a tram system (green line Luas). A BRT system would have had a capacity of, very optimistically, 6,000 people per hour per direction (a 100 person bus arriving every minute), but in practice probably less (that is difficult to maintain without delays). At the time, there was some doubt that even this capacity was required. The original tram setup also had a capacity of about 6,000 people per hour. Within years, the trams were full to overcrowding, and the line was expanded to 10,000 people per hour. Now it's at capacity again, with some of the longest trams in the world arriving every three minutes at peak. The only realistic option to further increase capacity is to turn it into a metro line (which, fortunately, was in principle planned for from the start, and _is_ possible, albeit with some disruption). If they'd gone with a BRT, they'd now be looking at ripping up the whole thing and having nothing for years while they laid tracks.

by nunez 6mo ago

Schiendelman 6mo ago

One of the things I found when advocating for transit was that BRT cost savings in the US almost always come from reducing quality at stations, which loses public support faster than you save money. I found that voters are usually willing to spend far more on trains than on BRT, in excess of any savings.

nunez 6mo ago
Wow; that's surprising.
- Schiendelman 6mo ago
  People vote with their gut. Their gut tells them that buses are terrible and trains are generally good. They're right.
- HDThoreaun 6mo ago
  People have buses. Makes them feel poor. Trains feel sophisticated.

dzhiurgis 6mo ago

BRT is mostly "you get what you pay for" - cheaper at a cost of lower capacity. Given relatively low density of US cities - that might be the right tool tho.

rsynnott 6mo ago
One thing you have to be careful about with things like this is induced demand. In Dublin in the early 90s, there was a debate about what to do with the right of way of an old commuter rail line, which had been closed in the 60s when closing rail lines was fashionable. Irish Rail wanted to reinstate the commuter rail line, Dublin Bus wanted to build a BRT system. In the early noughties, the transport authority split the difference and put in a tram system (green line Luas). A BRT system would have had a capacity of, very optimistically, 6,000 people per hour per direction (a 100 person bus arriving every minute), but in practice probably less (that is difficult to maintain without delays). At the time, there was some doubt that even this capacity was required. The original tram setup also had a capacity of about 6,000 people per hour. Within years, the trams were full to overcrowding, and the line was expanded to 10,000 people per hour. Now it's at capacity again, with some of the longest trams in the world arriving every three minutes at peak. The only realistic option to further increase capacity is to turn it into a metro line (which, fortunately, was in principle planned for from the start, and _is_ possible, albeit with some disruption). If they'd gone with a BRT, they'd now be looking at ripping up the whole thing and having nothing for years while they laid tracks.