Are Bus Rapid Transit Lines bad?

File: CtxwM-AWYAAKHH1.jpg (635KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 1536x2048px

>>1018378
No matter what mode of transit, the only thing that matters for daily transit riders is frequency and reliability of service. And no matter where in the world, bus transit is the integral part of all small-mid-sized cities. In Europe, cities large and small install bus-only lanes, signal priority, and subway-style fare collection to existing routes. Whereas in America this is called BRT, and politicians think it must be specially branded to differentiate it from the lowly bus, in Europe. it's called "the bus". So it's entirely a matter of perspective whether you think this plan is a cop-out or an entirely necessary upgrade to facilitate the mobility needs of some of the most transit-dependent people in the country.

>>1018384
>So it's entirely a matter of perspective whether you think this plan is a cop-out or an entirely necessary upgrade to facilitate the mobility needs of some of the most transit-dependent people in the country.

I mean, either way I like that there's going to be higher access to transportation. I'm in an area where taking public transportation for my commute would make it five times longer. I'm just curious whether it actually has any bad implications for longer-term public transport plans. But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as it's functional in itself.

>>1018386
Every metro area ever that developed rapid transit first developed a base of high ridership through frequent surface networks. Buses just happened to match the efficiency and surpass the scalability of the streetcar in the late 20th century. The eventual replacement of Woodward/Gratiot/Michigan BRT with rail should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, based on whether ridership has actually built up to the point where running bigger LRT cars would save on operating cost.

Just the other day I was checking the distance to the closest Jimmy John's from my house. It's 4.3 miles away and per Google Earth it takes 9 minutes to get there by car. With a bus, it would have taken 80 minutes...each way.

#FuckBuses

>>1018424
How is that bus network even designed? Do you live a mile from the next bus station? I live next to the shittiest bus line in my whole city and it only takes marginally longer to ride it to the city center it than to go by car.

Are you asking if rapid busses prevent rail transit from existing or if they are inherently a bad idea for public transport?
>>1018424
Sounds like you ought a buy a car

File: W6YDgrn2tn7pWeqnybWMscbK.png (177KB, 690x358px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 690x358px

>>1018378
>Does anybody live in a city that's experienced this? Or are these concerns unfounded?

I've lived in Ottawa for many years and I found the Transitway was perfectly adequate. Did it cause the u-turns and delays in the O-Train expansion? I dunno.

It's probably good until a certain capacity is reached.

>>1018424
So the bus moves at like 3 miles per hour?

>>1018378
poor man's LRT

>>1021774
Both, in a way. These buses are advertised as being essentially the same as light rail. Just the criticisms I've heard are that the tools they're supposed to be given to achieve this, such as dedicated lanes, traffic light control, and the like that they essentially just become overpriced buses that destroy the chance for light rail.

I mean, I plan to vote in favor of the plan to implement them either way, because we DO need more bus routes in general, I'm just wondering if these buses really do end up being a huge disappointment.

>>1022316
>overpriced buses that destroy the chance for light rail
This is utter BS spewed by autists that don't get what transit planning truly is, or what daily commuters actually want in terms of a reliable, dependable service. The first few posts really explain it all.
http://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Whos-On-Board-2016-7_12_2016.pdf

My city had a large BRT system
The buses are crowded as fuck

>>1022414
Time to upgrade to rail.

>>1022396
>spend almost the same amount of money on bus lines which have less than half the capacity of an LRT
>utter BS
yeah I guess those Europeans don't know shit about transit planning and America must teach them how it's done. oh wait.

>>1018384
>In Europe, cities large and small install bus-only lanes, signal priority, and subway-style fare collection to existing routes.
Except for the bus-only lanes this is pretty much objectively wrong. Very few places actually bother to have signal priority for buses except on specific intersections or certain lines. Subway-style fare collection is just a joke, no bus system in Europe ever has fare collection like that. What they may have is no fare collection at all and just random checks for people carrying the tickets

>Whereas in America this is called BRT
If that's true that would be extremely retarded.

>>1018395
If you don't have the demand for LRT it seems pointless to spend the same money on a BRT.

>>1022316
Well, a former Taichung mayor wanted to use BRT to establish a traffic mode that would demonstrate the demand of mass transit system in the city to the national government, but due to poor performance in the early day whem the system launch plus political factor and distrust on how government spend their money, the next mayor closed the entire system without entering official service in less than a year's time

>>1022430
Well my city is building a metro line right now but the BRT will stay sadly

>>1022906
Parallel to the BRT?

>>1022935
Not completely parallel