Shouldn't we be switching buses with light railway?
Shouldn't we be switching buses with light railway?
Even if you think what you would say is obvious, please add. This is genuinely something I think makes sense regarding local bus routes given the longevity of light rail and how infrequently routes change, but I also suffer from confirmation bias, so I'm hoping for reasons this would be a terrible idea but obviously would prefer reasons it would be an even more amazing idea than I thought.
You're viewing a single thread.
If you design your bus system like a light rail system without rails, you magically get most of the benefits for far less cost: https://youtu.be/fh1IaVmu3Y8
IMO it should be a progressive transformation. First light bus coverage, then more frequent busses and longer busses, then once the line is packed elevated light rails with remote control. The goal should always be to carry more people with less effort. Busses can be deployed quickly. Rails are a better long term solution.
I also want to eliminate rubber (tyre) wastage?
This video is so full of American stereotypes about transit and bad examples of what is considered improvement because you're having 10k instead of 3k riders per day in a city with an urban area of more than 600k people?! I think you could have a pretty sensible network that better serves people with the money poured in the UVX. The initial cost of the BRT is higher than that of light rail but with 10k riders per day do you even need a BRT? BRT also is not direct replacement for the tram or light rail, it doesn't offer the same capacity and ride comfort. Also the queue jumps mentioned in the video are potentially lethal to cyclists.