Bus Rapid Transit Wank

So when the market became competitive, the streetcar companies realized buses were better. That's an argument for, not against, buses

That's even more ridiculous than the so-called GM Streetcar Conspiracy.

The market was manipulated unfairly, streetcar companies were not allowed by law to raise their fares for decades. 10 cents might be fine in 1890 but in 1920 it is woefully inadequate to cover costs.

As for Geelong trams I agree it is ridiculous, but I can assure you it is true. The trams themselves went to Ballarat, which kept its trams operating until the early 70s as did Bendigo.
 

kernals12

Banned
The market was manipulated unfairly, streetcar companies were not allowed by law to raise their fares for decades. 10 cents might be fine in 1890 but in 1920 it is woefully inadequate to cover costs.

As for Geelong trams I agree it is ridiculous, but I can assure you it is true. The trams themselves went to Ballarat, which kept its trams operating until the early 70s as did Bendigo.
The trams were replaced by buses, and I have no idea how that helps Ford.
 
Are all three vehicles on the road at the same time?

Rail only works when it gets people from their residences to their workplace, otherwise you have that last mile problem on both ends, the reason people went to cars in the first place, reliably get to you work and return, at low cost, and on time

At peak times yes maybe all 3 are on the road at the same time. In any case the chance exists for 2 or 3 cars in a household to be on the road , but this can't happen with single car households.

Door to door service is an unrealistic standard for transport , few people who work in city centres park on site.
 
And not many people work in downtowns anymore.

Based on what sample city?

In Toronto at least, office space vacancy is at record low rates, and there is a lot of new construction to add capacity. In New York, the situation is similar, and coworking companies are buying up what little slack capacity there is. Condominiums and apartment towers are sprouting up everywhere too. Here's a comparison shot of Toronto's skyline in 2019 vs 2018:

3eyPNPiiNIfoaZUGkYUnuZZIPB61CI0PnU-BLhX20tc.jpg
 

kernals12

Banned
Based on what sample city?

In Toronto at least, office space vacancy is at record low rates, and there is a lot of new construction to add capacity. In New York, the situation is similar, and coworking companies are buying up what little slack capacity there is. Condominiums and apartment towers are sprouting up everywhere too. Here's a comparison shot of Toronto's skyline in 2019 vs 2018:

3eyPNPiiNIfoaZUGkYUnuZZIPB61CI0PnU-BLhX20tc.jpg
On average, only 8.4% of jobs in each metro area is located within the CBD.
In Phoenix, it's only 1.4%.

It's not hard to see why, employers have moved to suburban office parks and retail has moved to shopping malls.
 
Medellin has an even cheaper version of this. They just made a few pre-existing streets bus only and told the drivers to just absolutely floor it from stop to stop.
 
On average, only 8.4% of jobs in each metro area is located within the CBD.
In Phoenix, it's only 1.4%.

It's not hard to see why, employers have moved to suburban office parks and retail has moved to shopping malls.

That's all jobs. With no distinction made by job type, across 52 cities and conurbations in the United States, and leaving out secondary downtowns.

If you consider NY alone, all of a sudden that number becomes 22%, 76% of which use transit as their primary method of transportation. In downtown Manhattan, that almost certainly means the MTA or PATH subway system, or LIRR.
 

kernals12

Banned
That's all jobs. With no distinction made by job type, across 52 cities and conurbations in the United States, and leaving out secondary downtowns.

If you consider NY alone, all of a sudden that number becomes 22%, 76% of which use transit as their primary method of transportation. In downtown Manhattan, that almost certainly means the MTA or PATH subway system, or LIRR.
Nobody suggested getting rid of the Subway. But it's clear that rail is not necessary for most metros as it only really works if a lot of people are commuting to and from downtown.
 
I think buses have also become a lot less stylish over the years.

We went from this sculpted 1950s GM Old Look

To this box on wheels

Fixing that problem could also help make buses more appealing, again at much lower cost than light rail.
Your opinion. I like the "box on wheels" way more than the "Old Look". (And not just because I actually use TheBus heavily)

Only if they run at full capacity, which in America they never do.
Funny, I've been on light rail trains in Boston and Houston that sure seemed full. Guess I must have been imagining things.
 
On average, only 8.4% of jobs in each metro area is located within the CBD.
In Phoenix, it's only 1.4%.

It's not hard to see why, employers have moved to suburban office parks and retail has moved to shopping malls.
People still go into city centres or downtown's to visit tourist attractions and in many instances attend colleges or university's they should be taken into account as well.
 
Only if they run at full capacity, which in America they never do.

Except for a good portion of the MBTA's Green Line, which could be argued that that's because it basically run as if it was a subway (even though it's one of the oldest parts of the rapid transit network).

As for BRT - the only good models are Curitiba and Ottawa (the latter by using dedicated roads just for this purpose designed in such a way - as has, indeed, been going on - that if the city wanted to convert them to LRT, it could be done), though it could be argued, especially in the former case, that the model is starting to show its strain. In Ottawa's case, the increasing congestion in downtown was one big reason for the changeover to LRT - which is being done in stages (and in downtown's case alleviated through a tunnel) - but even the BRT network was reasonable because it was regular bus routes, not (necessarily) a dedicated network, that used it.
 

kernals12

Banned
Except for a good portion of the MBTA's Green Line, which could be argued that that's because it basically run as if it was a subway (even though it's one of the oldest parts of the rapid transit network).

As for BRT - the only good models are Curitiba and Ottawa (the latter by using dedicated roads just for this purpose designed in such a way - as has, indeed, been going on - that if the city wanted to convert them to LRT, it could be done), though it could be argued, especially in the former case, that the model is starting to show its strain. In Ottawa's case, the increasing congestion in downtown was one big reason for the changeover to LRT - which is being done in stages (and in downtown's case alleviated through a tunnel) - but even the BRT network was reasonable because it was regular bus routes, not (necessarily) a dedicated network, that used it.
I frequently use the Green Line to get to Boston. It's incredibly slow. Driving is always faster as long as I-90 isn't too congested. Seems like buses could handle it faster.
 

kernals12

Banned
The routes they were planning for the LA underground busways looked like this
screen-shot-2019-11-01-at-8-59-23-am-png.498990

It would've gone from I-10 to US-101 travelling along Hill and Main. And a seperate pair of tunnels would've gone from I-110 along Olympic and 7th until they reached the Main Street tunnels.

Buses could pick up passengers curbside in mixed traffic, then take separate bus lanes located in freeway medians, then when they reach downtown, they would go into the tunnels.

The only disadvantage of all this is the movie Speed would've been a lot less interesting.
 
Top