Buses are slower and have lower capacity than trains. However, because they can travel along existing roads, they're good for transitlet cities and for routes that aren't as popular. But if you're going to build BRT (which requires a larger investment in infrastructure), why not go all the way and build infrastructure for trains?
Trains are expensive and difficult. Buses, on the other hand, are like the car you probably drive, only bigger, so it's easier to understand how it works.
politically easier:1. pigs won't enforce actual bus lanes because "it will only be a minute" and "productive people are the ones driving personal automobiles not the scum on the bus", so just giving it a dedicated ROW instantly speeds it up exponentially2. the voting public sees it as just "streets but extra" so they won't flip their shit like they would with trains, which are seen as coming at the expense of cars
The only one I'm familiar with riding is Boston's silver line, and that barely qualifies. Three of the routes have their own tunnel system and right of way, could've been another trolley at the very least. I don't even think it's considered a BRT by technicality. I'm sure there's one in Europe or S. America that works well, but as far as I can see it's just a cop out for a real train
>>2009249They're 100% compatible with existing bus routes, so you can have dedicated bus ROWs without issues of other traffic around it. Dedicated bus lanes rarely work as well since they tend to be on the outside lanes where the slowest traffic is/turn lanes/property access.
>>2009249BRT is just poor man's light rail. It's cheaper and faster to set up but less efficient and expensive in the long run.
>>2009249You're not thinking like a bureaucrat.1. They're cheap to put in. You can use the buses you already have, though you might order a few new ones for promotional pictures/hype.2. No lenghty time disrupting traffic to lay down rails and catenary.3. It's achievable for our level of dysfunction4. You can make it ADA-compatible easier than trains. (ADA is the death of rapid transit and everything good in transit. Spoiled, high-standards. Can't just have a lean-to shelter and people step up into the train, now it needs a huge platform, elevators, and so on, blowing out costs.)5. You don't have to actually deliver anything. It can be literally just a normal bus line, under-invested, but you still get to call it "BRT," because there's no real standard for it like there is for High Speed Rail.>>2009288Good points.
>>2009369>No lenghty time disrupting traffic to lay down rails and catenary.Downtown Pittsburgh is fucked rn due to BRT construction. Impossible to know where any bus stops because they all changed their downtown routing, and it doesn't show on online or paper maps. And then they move stops again later in the day when evening construction starts up. Haven't tried driving down there but it's all a mess.
>>2009249It's cheap and works REALLY well if you implement right/go whole hog. Mexico city, for example, has an AMAZING BRT system.
>>2009547Your fault for living in such a gay/retarded city. Come to San Francisco - you get all the same delays and community opposition bullshit but it's permenenent because nothing gets fucking built.
I live in Madison WI and we are getting one. Should be completed by winter. I am trying to reserve judgment though already it seems like something only being done by YIMBY’s to troll car owners without really having the goal of being useful transit.
>>2009369>being accessible to old people and people in wheelchairs is badOh look it's the yimby eugenicist again
>>2009634Isn't it wild how they'll tell you that walkable cities and urban life is better for the elderly and disabled than suburbs, then turn around and complain that the ADA is the death of rapid transit
>>2009635Yeah they don't have any morals at all. The other thing they love to say is that living in suburbia is racist, and then they'll turn around and say that the thing that's really holding cities back is too many minorities
>>2009346CDMX has good BRT but I don't think it's ideal in North America when operator salaries make up such a large portion of transit costs.
>>2009249Laying catenary and tracks is expensive. Painting BUS ONLY every block for a mile or two is comparatively cheap. Cities which already have buses don't really have to add much, they don't have to invest in training operators in a new piece of equipment, and if the overall traffic impacts are a net negative, they're cheap to convert back into regular through-traffic lanes.All the above saves a lot of face from a high-risk investment like rail, tram, or monorail systems that would be extremely expensive, and may not be justified by ridership.
>>2009679BRT in Madison was pegged to cost $200m. I’m sure it’s gone over that and will continue to go over that before it’s completed.It feels like a bit of an excuse to spend the same money as rail would’ve cost (the ROW exists in abundant amounts) but do even less so the contractors could pocket even more money.
>>2009719That's a hell of a ticket price. I'm guessing it's mostly going towards purchase of rolling stock and station construction, however. Even with construction companies pocketing most the cost on a government contract, there's no way that redoing lanes costs that much. I used to get to Madison pretty frequently, but I don't remember seeing too many platforms being built (granted I wasn't really looking).
>>2009577saying one of the most successful north American brt projects on market street is nothing is brain dead.
>>2009755Is market considered BRT? Most of those lines branch off. Better example would be the replacement for the L taraval
