For all my rail enthusiasm, more and better bus service may be a more realistic option for improving urban transit, especially for cities looking to move forward in the absence of radical change in federal policy. And, indeed, even in an Yglesian rail-filled fantasy world there would still be a sizable role for buses, and it would be nice for that bus service to be as good as it can be, rather than what usually prevails today. This plan for 34th street in Manhattan is, in that light, pretty exciting and I bet there are a lot of cities that could do something similar at non-staggering prices.
« Economic Interests | Main | Official Playoff Predictions »
Bus Excitement
17 Apr 2008 02:45 pm
Comments (66)
I sincerely hope this helps the main problem with the cross-town bus--that because of frequent stops, they hit every light going across town, essentially making it slower to take the bus than to walk.
But this could have made my old commute from 30th and 1st to 42nd and 7th a LOT better.
Yes, buses actually make a great deal of sense.
But since building rail systems is so much more "exciting" (and also involves gigantic multi-billion-dollar construction contracts with lots of opportunity for profits, lobbying, and corruption) rail is always more popular among politicians.
A friend of mine had an idea that sounds futuristic but isn't. His scenario: a modest sized city has lots of small buses. A passenger goes to the nearest bus stop, swipes a bus pass to call for one, the nearest buses are determined via GPS, an optimum arrival time is calculated, the appropriate bus is alerted, and the passenger is informed how soon the next bus will be there. The bus travels defined routes so it doesn't compete with taxis for door to door service, but it overcomes the dreaded "When is it going to get here?" feeling and it shrinks the size of the investment needed to get things going.
"For all my rail enthusiasm, more and better bus service may be a more realistic option for improving urban transit..."
Congratulations, Matt: you just realized something that Jaime Lerner figured out in Curitiba, Brazil, ten years before you were born.
I just hope it will work better than the "dedicated" bus lane on chestnut street in Philadelphia that does no good since it's always clogged with cars. This does look better from the design. Bus tunnels, like in Seattle, are also nice, though obviously more expensive.
Even a less high-tech version of Jeff's idea is possible as well. (I guess Portland OR already has digital "estimated time" signs w/ GPS at many stops.) The city I lived in in Russia now has, in addition to it's barley functioning fleet of buses and trolley-buses, a large network of mini-buses that are run on a semi-private basis and follow bus routes or combinations of different routes. (That is, they stop at bus stops but might not always follow the same route as the actual bus.) It's a huge help, fairly fast, and not much more than the bus. Such things might be worth considering.
overcomes the dreaded "When is it going to get here?" feeling...
A feeling that, in my mind, is the #1 drawback to people using public transport.
Sometime in the last ten years in New York City (I can't remember exactly when), there were pilot-project LED signs on some subway platforms that told riders when the next train was expected. I haven't seen any in awhile, though.
Nobody is "moving forward" in the absence of a significant change in federal policy. The reason is simple- we're spending $600 billion a year on the military. One way or another, that money coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and they don't have enough left to also pay for the infrastructure improvements that should be federal policy- and federal initiatives.
"Bus rapid transit" will never be competitive with rail, for two reasons- first, it is as expensive as rail to build, but nowhere near as popular, and second, it carries on its back the labor costs of serving traffic peaks with extra buses. This is even before we get to the discussion about how transit figures in New Urbanism, Smart Growth, dealing with AGW, repairing our infrastructure, or dealing with vast tracts of decayed America.
Imagine, for a moment, that two or three billion of that military money could be spent on 34th St- would anybody seriously propose that a bus line would be a better model than the 42nd St shuttle?
Thee are good reasons that Denver, Salt Lake City, and Houston consider buses to be strictly ancillary to the 100+ mile rail transit systems they are trying to build.
Buses are the junk food of the transit world- appealing to the poor, who can't afford real food, but wrong on so many levels.
Yuppies won't ride buses. So it becomes a transit system for the poor and working class and so it ends up sucking.
Gary: they had those signs on the L. Not sure whether they're still there.
They should just rip 34th street out and put in an above-ground monorail.
"Bus rapid transit" will never be competitive with rail, for two reasons- first, it is as expensive as rail to build
The studies I've seen have said that BRT has much lower up-front capital costs compared to rail, but is actually more expensive to maintain over the long term. I'm not an expert though, and would be curious to see studies that disagree.
Personally I think there's a place for both rail and BRT in our transit system.
Yuppies won't ride buses. So it becomes a transit system for the poor and working class and so it ends up sucking.
Not true. Yuppies will ride good bus systems no problem, it's just that there aren't that many of them.
To take a tale from my own city of Indianapolis: A few years ago we underwent a major reconstruction project on downtown where two major interstates intersect. To help with the traffic mess this was going to cause, the Indy bus system decided to run a temporary commuter bus line up to one of the city's most highly populated uber-yuppie northern suburb. The temporary line was so successful that the city went on to make it permanent even after the new interstate interchange was complete, and is now expanding the service to other suburbs. These suburbs are actually competing with each other to be the next to get the service.
Yuppies won't ride buses.
Is this a law of physics? Stop treating buses like they're for the poor and/or brown folks, and perhaps they might. If you're going to be stuck in traffic on the freeway, why not be in a coach with the wireless internets and a toilet?
"Stop treating buses like they're for the poor and/or brown folks, and perhaps they might."
Maybe if it were a super bus, with great coffee, and great music...
Not sure how many of you have taken buses in NYC. They are so slow that during rush hour walking becomes a faster and cheaper alternative. I'd much rather take a subway that takes me WAY out of the way than try to catch a bus.
Absent a cohesive plan to limit traffic in downtown areas, there really isn't a quick fix for expanding mass transit in established cities.
That being said, I believe the unwillingness of many people to walk more than one or two city blocks is an overlooked factor in the inefficiency of downtown mass transit schemes.
I can only speak for my experience living in Minneapolis, but our bus system is designed to ensure that there is a bus stop within a mile of any location within the city. It's more than possible to get where you want if you plan adequately and don't hate a bit of exercise.
Then again, we have the advantage of the downtown skyway system...as wonderful as it is when it is -20F in the winter, it's also very nice to traverse the city while indoors if it is raining or disgustingly hot.
Yuppies won't ride buses. So it becomes a transit system for the poor and working class and so it ends up sucking.
Posted by Rob | April 17, 2008 3:38 PM
You ever lived in New York, mate? Because then you'd know that's a huge load of bullshit.
I took the light rail in Denver for about nine months (walking the .75 miles from the stop to my house) before I realized that the bus that literally stops in front of my house also goes a few streets over from my office. Total commute time now: approximately 19 minutes -- 12 minutes on the bus, and 7 minutes walking from the stop to my office.
Express buses are the answer. I live 4 miles away from work, a pretty big distance in a big, congested city. I've made it in 15 minutes during rush hour. If the traffic's bad, it takes more than twice that, sometimes. But no stops in-between makes it really convenient and better than taking the el.
Whoever said yuppies won't take buses is dumb. My bus routes in Chicago are full of them. If you don't live by the train, and your bus doesn't stop every block, it's a great solution.
"Whoever said yuppies won't take buses is dumb. My bus routes in Chicago are full of them. If you don't live by the train, and your bus doesn't stop every block, it's a great solution."
When we lived in Chicago, we were a few blocks east of Halstead. Our friends were also a few blocks east of it, but about four miles north of us. When we would go over to each other's place for the evening, we would take the Halstead bus for drinking purposes. So much nicer than drunk driving home or waiting forever for a cab after midnight.
San Francisco is moving ahead with Bus Rapid Transit on two of its most heavily-used transit corridors. The bus-only lanes will be well-separated from the other traffic, which should keep double-parkers and rogue drivers at bay. One nice feature is that it sets aside a right-of-way for future light rail.
And a typical 38 Geary bus in San Francisco contains more yuppies than live in some entire cities.
Not true. Yuppies will ride good bus systems no problem, it's just that there aren't that many of them.
So next think you will tell me that yuppies also drink beer and dunkin donuts as opposed to only wine and starbucks?
'Bus rapid transit' sounds so simple- get a few buses and run them rapidly. It doesn't work that way.
To run buses fast you need to provide them with their own right-of-way. The land acquisition cost for the right-of-way is the same for buses or trains. Aside from being less efficient than the steel wheel-on-steel rail of the trains, buses make the same energy demands on curves and gradients. At first you might think, "Well, at least we're not paying for the rails", but in reality roads take steel rebar, so the rails might actually be cheaper in the specific case. Like trains, buses need signaling systems. For buses, as for trains, platform lengths need to be sufficient to meet the traffic demands, not just the length of the vehicle.
So, when you compare costs for comparable systems, the out-of-pocket first cost for the 'bus rapid transit' is about the same as for light rail.
This is all before we get to the point that people will walk 2-3 blocks more to take a train than a bus, the labor (and benefits) cost of large numbers of buses, or the long-term benefits of rail.
catowner,
Nobody is "moving forward" in the absence of a significant change in federal policy. The reason is simple- we're spending $600 billion a year on the military. One way or another, that money coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and they don't have enough left to also pay for the infrastructure improvements that should be federal policy- and federal initiatives.
Utter nonsense. The share of the federal budget spent on the military is close to the historical low since at least the end of WWII. In the 50s and 60s we were spending more than twice as large a share of the budget on the military.
If you want to free up money for infrastructure, cut Social Security and Medicare. Those are the programs that are soaking up an ever-increasing share of spending.
catowner,
So, when you compare costs for comparable systems, the out-of-pocket first cost for the 'bus rapid transit' is about the same as for light rail.
What is "out-of-pocket first cost" supposed to mean?
What is the cost per passenger mile for a bus system vs. a light rail system serving the same route network? This would include both capital costs and operating costs. Stop making things up, and produce some serious evidence.
A friend of mine had an idea that sounds futuristic but isn't. His scenario: a modest sized city has lots of small buses. A passenger goes to the nearest bus stop, swipes a bus pass to call for one, the nearest buses are determined via GPS, an optimum arrival time is calculated, the appropriate bus is alerted, and the passenger is informed how soon the next bus will be there. The bus travels defined routes so it doesn't compete with taxis for door to door service, but it overcomes the dreaded "When is it going to get here?" feeling and it shrinks the size of the investment needed to get things going.
Yes, with even existing mapping and traffic monitoring technologies it should be relatively simple and inexpensive to equip bus stops with displays showing the expected wait time for the next bus, and the expected travel time between various points on the bus route. I agree that this would likely make bus travel significantly more attractive to many people.
Over the longer term, automation is going to dramatically improve the efficiency of our roads and highways for both buses and private vehicles. They could carry 10 times as much traffic as they do now if vehicle movements were managed more efficiently. Ultimately, in a fully automated system, vehicles could travel at very high speeds inches apart. Lane markings, stop lights, and other manual traffic management mechanisms would disappear.
Three quick points:
First, "yuppies" will use an express commuter bus that picks them up close to home and drops them off close to work at a reasonable speed and for a reasonable cost, and ineed they are already doing so where such conditions are met. That is because "yuppies" are not irrational.
Second, it is true that you could spend as much on a BRT system as a light rail system. But one important point is you don't necessarily have to. So, BRT serves as a flexible intermediate option when light rail might not be economically justifiable.
Third, when done well, a high-end BRT system can actually be better in certain applications than a light rail system. For example, in an ideal scenario, a given commuter bus could do a local circuit in a certain residential neighborhood, then hop on a dedicated busway for an express run to the local employement center. And each local community near the busway could have its own such route.
From a consumer perspective this is basically just like having a shuttle bus running from your neighborhood to the nearest light rail station, but without the need to get off the shuttle bus and wait for the next train, because your shuttle bus basically just becomes the train. And these local-express routes can be easily modified and scaled to meet changing demand patterns.
So, BRT really can compete with light rail in a lot of scenarios. Of course, light rail also makes sense in some scenarios ... but there is no reason to insist on one to the exclusion of the other.
Congratulations, Matt: you just realized something that Jaime Lerner figured out in Curitiba, Brazil, ten years before you were born.
I don't know if it's your intention but your tone kinda makes you out to be a bit of a dick.
The L does, in fact, still have the LED screens that are functional. This is no guarantee that they are accurate; passenger demand so badly outstrips track capacity on the L line that they constantly get backed up during rush hour.
The G also has screens, but they don't actually display wait times, so I have no idea why they're there.
So, BRT really can compete with light rail in a lot of scenarios. Of course, light rail also makes sense in some scenarios
If there is anywhere in the country where light rail is a superior alternative to buses (a highly dubious proposition) it's probably already been built. Most of the light rail systems built over the last couple of decades are boondoggles built for political reasons, not because they provide a clearly superior alternative to more buses or other options. They've made lots of money for the private contractors who built them at the expense of the taxpayer.
Ah, good ol' Mixner- our military spending is at a "historical low" when we're spending a little more than the rest of the world combined. So much wrong there it's hard to know where to start.
But his next comment, where he compares the cost of a "bus system" with a rail system, is a little easier to parse. My observations concerned the costs of "Bus Rapid Transit", which is presented as being as capable as a rail system. Naturally a "bus system" is much cheaper, because it does so much less.
And my point is that you not only could spend as much on BRT as you would on rail, but in fact you will spend as much on BRT as rail to achieve equivalent results.
This is where the BRT advocate becomes all slippery and slidey and you have to nail them down on details.
Curitabo built BRT when the heavy hand of the IMF-World Bank told them they couldn't build rail. Now that Brazil has broken free from the rule of the IMF, Curitabo is proceeding with the building of the rail system they need. When we break free from the iron grip of the military-industrial complex we will probably build the rail systems we need.
catowner,
our military spending is at a "historical low" when we're spending a little more than the rest of the world combined.
Utterly irrelevant to your claim. We're spending less than half as much on the military as a share of total spending as we did in the 1950s and 1960s. If we can't afford to spend as much on infrastructure as we used to, it's because we're spending so much more on social welfare programs than we used to, not because of military spending.
And your "rest of the world combined" standard is pretty meaningless anyway. We probably spend more than the rest of the world combined on all sorts of things, because we're a very rich country and have a very large population. We probably spend more than the rest of the world combined on foreign aid, for example. Is it therefore your position that we should cut our foreign aid budget?
But his next comment, where he compares the cost of a "bus system" with a rail system, is a little easier to parse. My observations concerned the costs of "Bus Rapid Transit", which is presented as being as capable as a rail system.
You haven't provided any "observations," just a series of wildly implausible assertions for which you have provided not one iota of evidence.
Mixner,
Your proposition is wildly implausible. As the U.S. population continues to grow it is highly unlikely there will not be new situations in which light rail becomes economically justifiable. So, for example, that is why they are building a new light rail system in Phoenix, which has experienced a rapid growth in population.
serial catowner,
Again, BRT can actually achieve superior results over light rail in certain applications. And also again, BRT gives public transit authorities an intermediate option when light rail cannot be economically justified.
So I actually think you are the one who is getting "all slippery and slidey", namely by artifically limiting your comparison only to cases in which the goal would be to use BRT to exactly duplicate an otherwise justifiable light rail service. Of course a comparison like that favors light rail, because implictly you are only looking at the cases which already favor light rail. If you do not artificially restrict the comparison to the most favorable cases for light rail, then I think you get a different result.
Well, Mixner is nothing if not bold. For example, he asserts that the size of the threat you might face is "utterly irrelevant"- if you're rich, you should spend on the grand style, tipping handsomely and lighting cigars with $20 bills. A dubious assertion even if we're rich, which a lot of people are beginning to suspect we're not.
Memo to Mixner- the proportion of our GDP that we spend on foreign aid is less than any similar nation. Get over yourself.
Mixner is probably broadcasting from the planet Zirgon. The rest of us can do the short form, in the real world, where our infrastructure needs $2 trillion in maintenance, the federal deficit has gone from $6 trillion to $10 trillion in seven years, and the people who fix bridges are not getting enough money.
I don't know if it's your intention but your tone kinda makes you out to be a bit of a dick."
Thanks, P. Now go educate yourself about Jamie Lerner and what he did in Curitiba and ask yourself if it's too much to expect Matt Yglesias -- a Harvard-educated, zealous advocate of mass transit -- not to be aware of one of the most famous and successful systems in the world.
One bus system that has successfully attracted yuppies is the private NY Waterway's bus system. The buses are clean, convenient, and operate on an easy to understand system. Let's say you live in Englewood Cliffs NJ and you work at 9 West 57th Street. You drive your Lexus hybrid SUV to the ferry terminal 15 minutes away in Weehawken, and then take the 5 minute ride across the river. As soon as you walk out of the terminal, you see a bus parked in front of a spot that says "57th Street". You get on that one. You hit the buzzer when the bus approaches the intersection with 5th Ave and you get off and walk across the street to your office building. When the work day's over, you simply walk out of your building and wave down the NY Waterway bus, and it takes you back to the terminal.
catowner,
Well, Mixner is nothing if not bold. For example, he asserts that the size of the threat you might face is "utterly irrelevant"-
I didn't assert that. Catowner is nothing if not illiterate.
Memo to Mixner- the proportion of our GDP that we spend on foreign aid is less than any similar nation. Get over yourself.
Well, make up your mind. If proportion of GDP is the relevant metric, rather than dollar amount in comparison to "the rest of the world combined," then your argument again fails. We spend a far lower share of GDP on the military now than we did in the recent past. Again, if we can't afford infrastructure, it's because we've increased spending so much on programs like Medicare and Social Security, not on the military. By historical standards, our current level of military spending is low. That's why all three presidential candidates, including both Democratic ones, want to increase it.
I really fail to see why comparing the same things is "artificially limiting". To me, it's the only sane way to draw any sound conclusion.
Of course it is true that buses can leave the freeway and continue on public streets to a wide variety of destinations. If that is something you especially want to do, that attribute would be of great weight to you. In my county we have a ton of dial-a-ride because the low population density makes it cheaper to serve large parts of the county by dial-a-ride than it would be with scheduled bus routes.
But that is not what the BRT advocates are claiming, and it has little to do with the problems major metro areas are trying to solve when they build rail systems. This goes a little beyond whether someone could avoid transferring by riding a single bus both on the freeway and then on surface streets.
What our cities need to do is deal with the transportation needs of millions of people while also dealing with the problems of congestion, pollution, parking, energy use, AGW, and the social costs of sprawl. In the major corridors we're talking very large numbers, and what I'm pointing out is that when the numbers get very large, buses cost money just like trains do.
The costs for BRT are similar to trains for the high-volume middle of the route no matter what you do at the ends. But there is a large and demonstrated difference in what you need to do at the ends between buses and trains. Investment and development close to stations is better with rail than buses, and this reduces sprawl, or, to put it plainly, it reduces the need for the bus to wander off from the station for an extra two or three miles to get you home. That's the outer end- at the inner end the trains will handle volumes of traffic that are simply impossible for buses.
And, because the numbers are very large, it doesn't matter if you or I choose not to live in Denver of SF right now- there are plenty of people who do, and the laws of averages will prevail.
Nobody is saying buses shouldn't be used where they are indicated. I'm just saying that when you count the actual costs of providing similar capacity, the so-called BRT costs about as much as rail.
Fred,
Once again confirming the rather unsurprising fact that "yuppies" will use a bus that takes them from where they live to where they work, provided it takes a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost.
DTM,
Your proposition is wildly implausible. As the U.S. population continues to grow it is highly unlikely there will not be new situations in which light rail becomes economically justifiable.
Sorry, it's your claim that's wildly implausible. It's population density that matters, not total population. In case you haven't noticed, the new cities and communities we're building have a low population density for which new light rail systems would make even less sense than the existing ones. Which brings me to....
So, for example, that is why they are building a new light rail system in Phoenix, which has experienced a rapid growth in population.
A great example of a hugely expensive boondoggle light rail system that makes no economic or practical sense. Even for the tiny fraction of journeys within the Phoenix metro area that start and end at points along the light rail route, I doubt that any of them could not be made more quickly and easily by car or bus. And of course, the overwhelming majority of journeys won't start or end anywhere near a light rail station. The Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale-Tempe metro area is HUGE, and no planned or future light rail system is ever going to be able to serve anything more than an infinitesimally small sliver of it. There won't be an actual riders on it, just a lot of homeless people using it as shelter from those 110-degree summers.
Re: They are so slow that during rush hour walking becomes a faster and cheaper alternative.
That's pretty much the case with buses everywhere. In college it could take up to a half-hour for me to get to school-- a distance of a mere three miles. Not just because of the traffic, but because the bus routes were as convoluted as fractal art. Biking was far more efficient, even walking would have been feasible. Trains I'll ride. Buses-- forget it. They have the defects of cars, and none of the conveniences.
Someone did however mention express buses. For getting suburban commuters downtown this would be a good idea: a number of central collection points around some outer beltway (provided with free parking so people can leave their cars there), then no stops until the bus gets downtown where there would be a small number of stops near major points of interest. I think Minneapolis does something like this.
Well Phoenix is building a light rail system to nowhere in particular, at great expense. Meanwhile, the busses run every half hour! It would take me between 1 and 3 hours to travel 6 miles from home to work, because the bus doesn't go down the nearest major cross street. So there would be a 3 mile detour with 2 transfers.
On a motorcycle, if I ride it like I stole it, I can get to work in 13 minutes from arming my house alarm to punching in at work.
So hell no, I'm not riding the bus.
Well Phoenix is building a light rail system to nowhere in particular, at great expense. Meanwhile, the busses run every half hour! It would take me between 1 and 3 hours to travel 6 miles from home to work, because the bus doesn't go down the nearest major cross street. So there would be a 3 mile detour with 2 transfers.
On a motorcycle, if I ride it like I stole it, I can get to work in 13 minutes from arming my house alarm to punching in at work.
So hell no, I'm not riding the bus.
serial catowner,
You write:
"But that is not what the BRT advocates are claiming ..."
I wasn't aware that BRT advocates spoke with a single voice. Who is the designated spokesperson?
"This goes a little beyond whether someone could avoid transferring by riding a single bus both on the freeway and then on surface streets"
That indeed isn't the only consideration, but it can be a very important one, depending on the residential area in question. For example, there are many residential communities that would benefit from sharing a light rail line or dedicated busway for the purpose of commuting to the local employment centers. However, in many of these communities the densities are such that many of the residents would end up pretty far away from the railroad or busway. Thus, getting these people efficiently from where they live to the express part of their route on the railroad/busway is a significant consideration.
"In the major corridors we're talking very large numbers, and what I'm pointing out is that when the numbers get very large, buses cost money just like trains do."
Again, in some circumstances light rail does indeed make the most sense. But I think it is worth noting that many areas also fall into a middle ground where congestion, energy-efficiency, environmental impacts, and so on are still concerns, but light rail is not economically justifiable. Indeed, in many cities both circumstances will exist, with some places where light rail does make sense, and some places where BRT would make more sense.
"Investment and development close to stations is better with rail than buses, and this reduces sprawl, or, to put it plainly, it reduces the need for the bus to wander off from the station for an extra two or three miles to get you home."
I think you need to be careful with words like "sprawl". For example, many of the areas where BRT makes sense are former "streetcar suburbs", or "new urbanism" communities modeled on the streetcar suburbs. This isn't a coincidence, of course: in many ways BRT is a pretty close substitute for the networks of streetcars that once served these communities. And these communities have significantly higher densities than typical "sprawl" areas. Now, maybe you think it would be better to push people into even higher densities yet, but from a public policy perspective, just helping a higher percentage of people live in "streetcar suburbs" (perhaps now "BRT suburbs") would have huge benefits.
"And, because the numbers are very large, it doesn't matter if you or I choose not to live in Denver of SF right now- there are plenty of people who do, and the laws of averages will prevail."
Again, I think in many cities you will find useful applications for both light rail and BRT, including probably both of those cities.
"Nobody is saying buses shouldn't be used where they are indicated. I'm just saying that when you count the actual costs of providing similar capacity, the so-called BRT costs about as much as rail."
Right, ultimately for high volume point-to-point travel, trains are more efficient than BRT. But BRT is a lot more efficient than cars. Conversely, cars are more versatile than BRT. But BRT is a lot more versatile than trains. That is why all three modes of transit have their place, with BRT being flexible enough to occupy a lot of the middle ground.
But if you are just agreeing that light rail and BRT both have legitimate applications depending on the circumstances, then you and I agree.
Mixner,
As usual, you assert a lot of things without an iota of evidence. You also don't show even a basic understanding of the tradeoffs involved with various modes of transportation. I've tried to educate you in the past, and yet here you are simply repeating all the same mistakes as if we never had those prior conversations.
JonF,
Right, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is not the same thing as conventional bus service. On the low end, it can just mean express scheduling. But on the high end, you can have dedicated busways, which in situations where congestion is an issue can mean that using BRT is actually significantly faster for many commuters than a car would be (on top of being more efficient). And there are a number of intermediate options involving things like bus lanes, preferential traffic signal switching, and so on.
Aatos,
Again, I think it is important to note BRT is not the same thing as conventional bus service, and that in some applications it actually takes less time than using a car (or legally driven motorcycle). That said, there are certainly situations in which cars (or motorcycles) are likely to remain the best option for commuters.
DTM,
As usual, you assert a lot of things without an iota of evidence.
What assertions? The ones about population density? The ones about the inability of light rail to serve the vast majority of journeys? Or what? Describe the specific points you dispute.
You also don't show even a basic understanding of the tradeoffs involved with various modes of transportation.
What tradeoffs? Do please describe the "tradeoffs" that you believe justify the Phoenix light rail system, for example. According to Wikipedia, just the initial cost of that system is $1.4 BILLION. For a mere 20 mile, single-line route that doesn't go anywhere near 99% of the homes, stores, restaurants, workplaces, etc. in the Phoenix metro area. $1.4 billion would buy a lot of buses. Please explain how you have determined that the money was better spent on the light rail system than on expanding the Phoenix bus system. Or some other alternative. Do please explain why you think it's even remotely plausible that the light rail system makes more economic or practical sense than more buses or something else.
Mixner,
This is precisely the general problem with your posts. I didn't claim to know whether or not the Phoenix system was economically justified. I just noted the fact it was being built.
You, however, have claimed it isn't economically justified. But rather than prove your claim, you expect me to disprove it, even though you are the one claiming to know the answer.
So, no thanks. If you want to dig up the relevant studies, review them, and offer definitive proof they are wrong, be my guest. But I am not doing your homework for you.
DTM,
I didn't claim to know whether or not the Phoenix system was economically justified. I just noted the fact it was being built.
Now you're just lying. You specifically cited the Phoenix system as an example of new light rail projects that you claim to be "economically justified" as a result of population growth. Show me your economic analysis substantiating this claim. You haven't offered any evidence to support your repeated claim that "in some circumstances light rail does indeed make the most sense" with respect to ANY light rail system at all, let alone the Phoenix one specifically.
You, however, have claimed it isn't economically justified. But rather than prove your claim
I don't have to "prove" that light rail projects are not economically justified. The burden rests with those--YOU, for example--who claim they ARE justified to substantiate that claim. You haven't offered one iota of evidence to support that claim. You're the one who is arguing in favor of these systems. You need to show that they make sense. You haven't done that.
DTM,
Right, ultimately for high volume point-to-point travel, trains are more efficient than BRT.
"More efficient" in what sense? Total cost per passenger mile? Or what? Show me your analysis substantiating this claim, either for "point-to-point travel" for BRT (or even just regular buses) versus trains in general, or for "point-to-point travel" for BRT versus urban light rail systems, such as the ones in Phoenix, Houston, Salt Lake City, etc. And what exactly do you mean by "point-to-point travel," anyway? As opposed to what other kind of travel? All journeys start at one point and end at another, so it's not clear what subset of travel this "point-to-point" qualifier is supposed to represent.
Well Phoenix is building a light rail system to nowhere in particular, at great expense.
Oh, but light rail is kewwwwwl. Who cares if it doesn't make any sense? It makes ignorant pretentious urban American hipster wannabes feel all Europeany and stuff. Get your priorities right.
Mixner,
Again, this is a general problem with your posts.
For any specific transportation project, there will be a host of cost-benefit studies. Did I personally do those studies for the Phoenix project? Of course not. Indeed, I have no problem noting I have never even seen those studies for the Phoenix project.
But you seem to think that as long as you assert it wasn't justified, it then becomes my job to find those studies, review them, and present all of that analysis to you. Once again, no thanks. If you want to claim those studies are wrong, you can find them, you can review them, and you can prove why they were wrong. But I am not about to do all of that research for you just because you demand it.
Mixner,
With respect to your second post, I will be happy to comply after you first show your willingness to hold yourself to the same standard. For example, please provide all relevant definitions, data, and analysis proving all of the statements in the following paragraph:
"If there is anywhere in the country where light rail is a superior alternative to buses (a highly dubious proposition) it's probably already been built. Most of the light rail systems built over the last couple of decades are boondoggles built for political reasons, not because they provide a clearly superior alternative to more buses or other options. They've made lots of money for the private contractors who built them at the expense of the taxpayer."
DTM,
For any specific transportation project, there will be a host of cost-benefit studies. Did I personally do those studies for the Phoenix project? Of course not.
I asked you to justify your claim that the Phoenix light rail system is an example of an "economically justified" light rail system. I'm still waiting for you to do that. I'm waiting for you to do it with respect to ANY light rail system. You keep asserting that "in some circumstances light rail does indeed make the most sense" but you haven't even described what you think those circumstances are, let alone presented any evidence whatsoever that the claim is justified with respect to any light rail system that actually exists.
But I am not about to do all of that research for you just because you demand it.
Sorry, it's YOUR job to do the research to substantiate YOUR assertions, such as "in some circumstances light rail does indeed make the most sense." Where is it? I keep asking, and you keep evading the question.
You're obviously just talking out of your ass. Guessing and wishful thinking are not a subsitute for EVIDENCE, DTM. Where is your evidence? Produce it.
Mixner,
And I am waiting for you to product YOUR evidence for YOUR assertions. Where is it? I keep asking, and you keep evading the question. You're obviously just talking out of your ass. Guessing and wishful thinking are not a substitute for EVIDENCE, Mixner.
Again, this is the basic problem with your posts. You keep asking everyone else for proof of everything they say, and yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard.
DTM,
Sorry, YOU are the one asserting that light rail makes sense, not me. It's up to YOU to produce evidence to support that claim. Where is it DTM? Where is your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, DTM? Stop trying to change the subject, stop evading the question, and back up your claims.
Of course, we both know you have no evidence, no studies, no data. Hence all the evasion and doubletalk. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass, same as you always do.
Mixner,
Sorry, YOU are the one asserting that light rail doesn't make sense, not me. It's up to YOU to produce evidence to support that claim. Where is it Mixner? Where is your E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, Mixner? Stop trying to change the subject, stop evading the question, and back up your claims.
Of course, we both know you have no evidence, no studies, no data. Hence all the evasion and doubletalk. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass, same as you always do.
Seriously, Mixner, this is just too easy. You can't apply such an obvious double standard to yourself and expect to get away with it.
You keep can up this silly parroting act as long as you like, DTM. It just makes you look more and more foolish and makes it more and more clear that you are utterly incapable of backing up your support for light rail with facts and figures. There are no facts and figures supporting your position. And that's why the future of public tranportation in this country is buses and airplanes. Oustide of a few small existing niche markets, rail travel will continue its long decline into extinction.
Mixner,
It is more and more clear that you are utterly incapable of backing up your criticism of light rail with facts and figures. There are no facts and figures supporting your position. And that's why the future of public tranportation in this country includes light rail.
Look, I would be happy to have a civil conversation with you, rather than mocking you. But the first thing you need to do is realize that you are not holding yourself to the same standard that you demand other people meet. You can reconcile that however you want: start actually providing the sorts of evidence you demand from others, or stop demanding evidence you won't provide yourself. But until you do one or the other, I am going to keep making fun of you, because that is all you deserve.
The only person you're mocking with this evade-and-parrot act is yourself, DTM. I assure you that I will continue to demand evidence for your claims in support of light rail as long as you keep making them. The longer you go without producing that evidence, the clearer it is that you have none.
I think on some level you must realize that rail travel is basically doomed in this country, but for some reason you just can't bring yourself to admit it. The power of wishful thinking.
Mixner,
I assure you that I will continue to demand evidence for your claims against light rail as long as you keep making them. The longer you go without producing that evidence, the clearer it is that you have none.
I think on some level you must realize that rail travel is succeeding in this country, but for some reason you just can't bring yourself to admit it. The power of wishful thinking.
Anyway, I think I have more than made my point. If you ever decide you want to have a civil conversation, I will be happy to oblige.
I think on some level you must realize that rail travel is basically doomed in this country, but for some reason you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
Doomed? That's just silly. Subway ridership is up sharply in those US cities with subways. I can't imagine the long term trends in energy costs will do anything but reinforce this pattern:
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/pr/article.asp?id=16041
DTM,
I think on some level you must realize that rail travel is succeeding in this country, ....
Your claims are becoming increasingly hilarious. For many decades, air and motor vehicle travel has grown dramatically, while rail travel has declined dramatically. Long distance passenger rail is virtually dead. High speed rail is virtually non-existent. The urban tram and streetcar systems that used to exist in most American cities have been dismantled. Amtrak limps along barely avoiding complete bankruptcy every year. New communities are low density suburban and exurban developments for which rail would make even less sense than it already does. Yet in bizarro DTM world, this is "succeeding." You really are utterly clueless. But then, given that you don't even understand the importance of the difference between population and population density, this isn't terribly surprising.
It makes ignorant pretentious urban American hipster wannabes feel all Europeany and stuff.
As opposed to snarking at mass transit, which in Mixner's glibertarian fanboi fantasies puts him a millimetre closer to getting into McArdle's pants.
Yawn.
Shorter Mixner: "Because all of my past comments are bullshit, it must be assumed not only that all comments I will make in the future are bullshit, but everyone else's comments will be bullshit too."
The wonders of extrapolating from a flawed sample of one.
At Rutgers we were lucky enough to have GPS tracked buses (and off-campus shuttles) and a website that displayed their positions on a map of New Brunswick/Piscataway. It was accurate enough I knew when to put on my back pack and saunter to my front step where an off campus shuttle would stop if I hailed it. You could also determine how the traffic was moving on some roads known for congestion and time your trip well in advance. www.whereismybus.com is wonderful and cities should adopt this. Yeah, yeah, it won't solve everything for everyone, but it will end the waiting at the bus stop.
Re: New communities are low density suburban and exurban developments for which rail would make even less sense than it already does.
If gas stays at its current price, or increases, do you think that particular trend will continue?
I very much doubt it. I am moving to a new city next month (my job is being relocated there) and I can tell you the last thing I want is another 25 mile commute. Five miles from the office is the most I will tolerate, unless I can live near a rail line, then I might go out to 10.
"New communities are low density suburban and exurban developments for which rail would make even less sense than it already does."
That sounds nice. But even if this assertion is based on actual data at all (which I doubt), it's tautological. "New communities" are non-urban, more or less by definition.
If one were really interested in examining whether rail made sense or not, one might want to look at recent trends in rates of growth of residential housing supply, occupancy, and value in urban vs. non-urban settings. Especially one might want to look at any correlations between those numbers and access to, or investment in, rail and transit.
But then, that might show that Homo Americanus isn't necessarily genetically welded, centaur-like, to the automobile. So, nevermind.
Comments closed May 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Indeed, "Bus Rapid Transit" has a lot going for it, including lower sunk costs, scalability, and flexibility. And it could even turn into a competitive high-speed intercity option with automatic highway lanes, although obviously that is a bit farther in the future.
Posted by DTM | April 17, 2008 3:02 PM