I think this is probably a worthwhile video to counterbalance this one, what buses can do!: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RgMENVKYZDg.html
Another argument on the passenger side: trust in longevity. A bus line can be scratched or changed in a day, any day. Tracks provide a feeling of stability over years, making switching to commute on it long term more reliable. If there is a metro line or a tram line, it is likely not going anywhere in the next years.
He did touch upon that near the end of the video, but you are very right. That said, there are limits to that strategy, most former tram systems were ripped out when their infrastructure came to the end of their life cycle and needed replacing. Transit operators just didn't have the money of the will to invest in renewing tracks (especially when in many places, tram operators are also responsible for the road infrastructure these tracks are in). CAPEX is lower per passenger, and can be written off over a longer period of time, but in the end, the investment itself is a lot higher. If that moment is badly timed...
I think it's a dumb argument. if certainty is required, a BRT or Bus with laws locking it in would have the same effect. It doesn't matter how it *looks* it matters how it functions. There is benefit to keeping the route locked in so that town and property developers can plan around that with TID, and buyers will know that they will always have service if they buy there, but it need not be a physical chunk of metal in the ground to make that so.
@@retabera people eat with their eyes. People also move with their eyes, if you want. Assuming a BRT can truly do the same things any LRT can do (which I think up to a certain level, but beyond that...), it's still 'just' a bus. People are irrational beings, we give about status, about readability, about colours... And currently, LRVs have a better reputation with both users and others than buses.
The longevity argument can be a double-edged sword. Buses are easy to extend as the city grows, but rail is fixed without huge capital funding to build new tracks, not to mention construction-related disruption to businesses. The result can end up being sub-optimal routing where you either have a forced transfer to buses at the end of the rail line (annoying), or buses duplicating the rail line in order to avoid the transfer (which is inefficient). Also, rail is not immune from budget cuts. It can get its frequency reduced and/or lines abandoned for budgetary reasons, just like buses. Happens all the time.
not just for passengers but for businesses as well being next to a train station is valuable, being next to a bus stop that might not be there in a year? not so much
Great video Reece! I would add one more positive aspect of trains: for some riders, a rail service can be easier to “navigate” from point A to point B, especially if they are not frequent/regular users of a system.
Why? Nothing about the train being on rails makes it easier to find. If you build a train station, but it instead has a road surface and buses, it'll be just as easy to navigate. Buses are only worse when you remove features that are platform agnostic, such as covered shelters/stations, off board fare payment, all door boarding, electric catenary power delivery, dedicated ROW, and smooth/maintained running surfaces.
@@calebjiang4056this is such a pointlessly argumentative approach to discussion. You know very well that you are just being pedantic here, because thats not how bus systems are designed.
@@cooltwittertag Plenty of good BRTs out there that deliver rail-like service with the same amenities for around 1/3 the capital costs. BRT is far better for deploying large amounts of rapid transit at reasonable costs. In the US, just look at LA's Orange Line, Albuquerque's ART, and Cleveland's Healthline as examples. Even in SF (where I'm from), comparing the Van Ness BRT project to the Central Subway shows how much more cost effective BRT is compared to rail. (Central Subway cost was around 3x more for 1/2 the length and slower service)
@@calebjiang4056 The Van Ness BRT also is on the surface whereas the Central Subway is, well, a subway, and there are extra costs associated with tunnelling (with the advantage of being traffic independent, though).
I would say that trains should be the main trunk, but for branching out, it's typically harder to construct, especially when residential areas are dense and hard to build over it. This is where buses thrives, as a feeder to trains or even direct buses to prime locations like town centers. Also, terrain may be another struggle if it's not that flat, which is another use case for buses
See, that's one bus route out of at least 158 bus routes that is as fast and as good as the adjacent rail line. (The other 157 bus routes will be slower and worse) (assuming they number them consecutively... let's say "one bus route out of many", "tongue in cheek") Even in Germany some long distance coaches are faster (better) on some relations than trains. Mostly because of geography, 19 th century politics, and just enough ridership to fill a coach but not enough to justify tunneling through some mountains...
So, let me tell you how it usually is for people in the Netherlands. Usually busses are used to get from the house to the trainstation and the trainstation to the destination. Depending where you go, that bus can be a tram or a metro. Or even a trolleybus (Arnhem). Also, instead of taking the bus to the station, you can take a bicyle to - and even from (hiring one). That is, if you travel relatively light. All in all, trains, trams, metros, bicycles & busses each have their role here. It's not a question of which one, but which where.
My city bogota has a gold standard brt system, it’s a good system but it fell short when you consider the amount of people using it, my city has 10 million of inhabitants I think buses are useful for mid size cities but for massive city a train is a must have
Its the "Gold Standard" but a lot of locals do not like it, I think its a good example of where more trains should have been built long ago - at least they are now!
I certainly agree. BRT has its uses but also limitations. Surabaya (where my project is) has an urban population of 3 million and I'm not convinced that BRT is the appropriate solution. But, in a city like Jakarta - much larger than Bogota! - relying so much on buses, even with the world's largest BRT network, is not a greater way to bolster demand for public transport.
$700,000 for a bus seems pretty expensive 😱. A quick search suggests Norwich (England) paid £350,000 each for new single decker electric buses and £500,000 for electric double deckers. The Enviro400 diesel double decker costs around £200,000.
@@timothymeyer3210 yes but recce was referring to electric single deck busses when he said they cost $700,000 in the US. An electric single deck bus would cost around $450,000 in the UK
@@isaacrawlings1651the UK Enviro200s are shorter than the XE40s in the US. Other than that, US buses just cost more despite being worse in ride quality because of the lack in competition & over regulation.
Our office is in a suburb of Tel Aviv which recently got Light Rail Before it opened, everyone drove here, despite really good bus service. Now a lot of our employees and people who come for meetings take the train! Several people told me that without the light rail they'll either drive or take a cab - the bus is not a serious option
@@RMTransit Don't get me wrong, the buses are packed. They're also really new on average with relatively comfy seats, good way finding and lots of doors (at least compared to north America). The issue is a general lack of bus lanes outside of Tel Aviv city center and a stigma with buses that makes a lot of people not want to ride them
Or maybe buses just aren't as good?? Why are transit activists so eager to make up every reason they can rather than just listen to the preferences of actual transit users and non-users?@@crowmob-yo6ry
I've spent many, many visits travelling on Egged and Dan buses in Israel. But metros are certainly a gamechanger: last year, I tried out the Jerusalem line and it already desperately needs more or longer trains. The improved visibility of rail-based public transport definitely improves awareness of a public transport system.
In England - bus fares are capped at £2 per journey so to the end user they are not expensive compared with trains especially if fares are capped. A bus may be expensive compared with a train carriage - but you are assuming the rails are laid, stations are built and signals are in place. Laying a new line is very expensive and so in UK we go for trams and buses.
While I tend to agree with the overall message, the CAPEX and OPEX of infrastructure should not be a footnote at the end of the video. You also need more skilled workers on your payroll for maintenance of rail infrastructure, whereas bus infrastructure is more on the city, county, or other local authority. Unless you are also that authority (or that authority sends you some or all of that bill) your OPEX for infrastructure is reduced by that fact.
Exactly. Reece downplays the cost of building the tracks, which is a far bigger part of a new train system than the actual vehicles. Building the infrastructure makes sense for trunk routes and high-capacity corridors. However, buses can be deployed fairly quickly and service levels can be increased as fast as you can hire drivers.
@@scottalbrecht3578 Depends on if you already have underutilised infrastructure and are not building from scratch. In Latvia, the OPEX of passenger rail is lower than for buses. So we are trying to intensify rail services in order to minimize cuts to bus services. But for new infrastructure CAPEX there's often some higher level funding schemes available - like EU grants or US federal grants.
The way I see it, good rail infrastructure should actually save money for whatever authority maintains the road infrastructure because it takes lots of (increasingly heavy) personal and bus vehicles off the road. As a society, there ought to be significant gains from this (e.g. reduced wear-and-tear on roads, reduced pollution, fewer injuries and property damage from crashes, etc). In an ideal world, money would be re-allocated to rail infrastructure as direct and externality savings are realized... though reality doesn't often play as nicely of course. All that to say, I imagine there might be some sort of a bigger, more holistic OPEX-like figure that filters out this kind of inter-agency cost spread, which might better represent cost to the government / society more broadly?
@@jl3782 "The way I see it, good rail infrastructure should actually save money for whatever authority maintains the road infrastructure because it takes lots of (increasingly heavy) personal and bus vehicles off the road." That depends how often the buses run. If the bus isn't very frequent, the road likely gets far more wear from trucks than it does from buses.
@@ab-tf5flHowever, trucks pay a small fee for the damage they inflict; buses, on the other hand, are total freeloaders----they don't pay a single red cent for the surfaces they roll on, thus leaving those costs all up to the taxpayers.
While on a bus, I saw an Alstom Coradia iLint in Halifax!!! ...But was on the back of a freight train, presumably headed for Quebec. The crowded bus journey took an awful lot longer on its path, which parallels the freight line, than a train trip would have taken.
Hi, I've just recently moved to Ljubljana. Do you think the existing rail lines could be used more efficiently to act as an S-bahn, or do you think trams should be constructed? Because I remember them saying that after they build the passenger center, they will be able to do 15 minute headlines for local train services.
Can confirm about the service life of trains having been on a 1973 tube stock. Now I don't doubt its getting replaced for a reason (Especially if they improve accessibility) but 50 years of service is damn impressive, its basically an antique in car terms but still putting in the miles serving London.
I would love to see you do a video on the story of San Diego's revival of their "trolley" network! It's my hometown and it's been a huge success even with all the sprawl, and keeps expanding! Can see all types of people on the SD trolley and it's (for the most part) very well kept with modern rolling stock. Even with San Diego's problems, they've made really good strides in expanding the transit network, making bus lanes, and overall making the city center more walkable.
I actually didn't know that buses are the backbone of the public transport system... I thought it's the trains. Thank you, I learnt something new today!
I was astonished at the capex of the buses in this video - $700,000??? I'm currently working on a project in Indonesia and looking at bus procurement; for diesel buses, I'm looking at around $150,000 and e-buses at $250,000. So, for sure, a capex of $700,000 per unit would sink most BRT projects! The video also mentions labour costs but doesn't mention that station/stop costs for buses are zero, once built, whereas stations will have staff, even if ticket offices have been eliminated. As for the capex of infrastructure, surely that depends? On one hand, you have eye-watering projects such as the UK's HS2 or NYC's 2nd Ave subway project but elsewhere, even in higher income countries, infrastructure costs can some in at a fraction of these two examples.
Couple of additional thoughts: 1. Buses do have a stigma, particularly in the US. Trains are less stigmatized. 2. Another aspect, particularly important in northern US and Canada is winter weather. Buses have to fight the snowy roads and navigate with/around stupid drivers (Winter is a stupidity multiplier). Trains can operate quite efficiently in any winter weather situation. Articulated buses I imagine as being a total nightmare in winter. 3. Trains usually are much more ADA friendly. When we were traveling in LA using public transit (ugh), using the bus was a pain because we had to remove our toddler from the stroller and awkwardly hold it. On the train, we just roll it in and brake it.
Trains are less stigmatized? Hmm, have you ever been to NYC or CHI? How about LA or SF? Trains and the element riding them literally created the suburbs by scaring every valuable person away.
@@starventure I literally say in this comment that we rode in the LA subways. I have ridden on NYC metro and the BART. They are fine with their own problems. Yes, I know of the negatives and would still ride them over the buses.
@@starventure I road Portland's MAX Blue line for almost an entire year. It saved me a butt ton of money and frustration. I read about 5-6 books during that time. The occasional homeless person didn't really bother me.
In the Australian city of Perth road planners were promoting BRT as the solution for servicing newly developing northern suburbs...until cost estimates showed that for the forecast ridership BRT would be more expensive than rail because of the cost of drivers. Eventually, rail was chosen, and uses a freeway median. In January 2024 the line had 1.2m boardings, while Perth's overall rail network had 4.1m boardings. For a North American comparison, this is slightly ahead of BART's 3.8m in the same month.
I blame American car culture. Especially in the San Francisco area, car-addicted suburbanite NIMBYs with irrational fear of crime and homeless people too often refuse to ride BART.
It is important to consider how frequent a bus service needs to be at a minimum? What is the minimum frequency that does not make ridership suffer. If ridership suffers (enough) it may lead to service cuts and ridership suffers more, thus a transit death spiral.
It's just so frustrating how so many American politicians hate passenger railways (local and intercity) with a burning passion and refuse to build them (or anything other than highways). Even more frustrating, many of the worst car-centric, anti-pedestrian, anti-train, pro-NIMBYism US cities have the perfect geography for a metro, light rail or regional rail system. Indianapolis, Tampa, Jacksonville, Tulsa, Columbus, Las Vegas, Memphis, the fake Birmingham, Tucson, and Detroit are just a few examples.
Please read these three great books on the subject: "Moving Millions" by Stanley I. Fischler "Beyond the Automobile" by Tabor R. Stone "Public Transportation" by Vulcain R. Vulchic; These three books will help clear up how everything went wrong with rail-based public transportation, and expose the main players in this transportation disaster the entire nation must suffer with....
Some of the larger cities on that list have almost no excuse for a lack of passenger railways given their population and tourism industry. Las Vegas and Tampa come to mind. Also Detroit is the second-largest city in the Midwest and has no rail outside of downtown. Columbus is another large Midwestern city with no passenger rail.
Another advantage of a train (or tram) over a bus is that tourists will be more inclined to use public transport. For example, a tourist in London or Edinburgh wouldn't really know how to use the bus but would likely know about the train (or tram for the latter). Like idk which bus to take in Edinburgh, but I definitely know the tram since I know where it goes. Speaking of which, the extension has definitely caused induced demand.
Don't most tourists use google maps to navigate cities? I live in Edinburgh but don't know all the bus routes, but google will tell me which ones to take between two points. And with fixed fares that can be paid with contactless cards tourists don't even need to speak to the driver. Just tap your phone/card on the reader and take a seat. Couldn't be easier.
@@kjh23gkMapping apps definitely make these things a lot easier (I remember visiting Cyprus and Google Maps didn't have public transport - getting a bus was a nightmare). I think the hardest thing about buses for a tourist is finding the bus stop itself, and knowing when to get off. That's much easier on a train, as the stations are very obvious and each stop clearly marked. But yes, Google Maps has made it much easier for buses for those unfamiliar (as well as improved digital signage on many modern buses)
I like to think buses/trams should be used as a short shuttle to pick people up between stations and people get off it to take the faster metro. And even funnier, if the metros also feed into even faster and larger trains. Almost seems like you’re gonna transfer into a bigger vehicle at every stop lol
Reece, what is your opinion about guided bus systems? In Cambridge area we have a semi-network of guided buses which to me seem like 'a poor-person's tram system'. A major disadvantage is that the guided system track stops before entering the city centre, just where a dedicated transport network is really needed.
A couple of years ago, there was a proposal to build tunnels linking up the Cambridge busways, which would have included underground stops under the city centre. It's a shame that didn't happen. The reason the UK is such a pioneer in guided busways is because British cities have a lot of abandoned railway trackbeds through built-up areas - perfect for local transport corridors, but since most British cities demolished all their tram networks, they convert them for bus use instead, with a long term option of upgrading them for tram/light rail use later. So far, the busway in Edinburgh is the only one in the UK that ended up being converted to tram operation. I'd love to see the ones in Cambridge, Luton, Bristol, Salford, as well as the unguided ones in South Hants and Runcorn be converted to light rail.
Many UK tram networks also have the same issue, i.e. in Nottingham, Croydon, Manchester, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and the new line in Dudley, there are trams on old railway trackbeds right up until the edge of the city centre and then they trundle through regular traffic and even pedestrian zones at 10mph right through the busiest part of the line, while in urban areas of similar sizes in Germany, trams are often in mixed traffic lanes in the less busy parts of town and then they stop at underground stations in the more central areas. The ones in the UK could almost be full metros if they built their central tunnels.
@@lazrseagull54 Metrobus in Bristol really isn't much. There are a few tiny guided sections at the entrances to some short bus only roads, and although there are bus lanes on the routes, it really isn't very much for what it cost
In Scotland on ScotRail services ‘most but all’ now only offer Off Peak tickets in order to increase ridership. Edinburgh have a 80p ‘not sure what that is in CAN dollars’ for two stops flat fare, and a max of £4 for a day ticket. Meanwhile Glasgow is or used to be £3:40 for a day ticket. However Glasgow and it’s districts, especially towards Inverclyde and through Paisley ‘a nearby town’ have different bus operators. Where I’m located in Falkirk unfortunately buses are incredibly expensive, for the locals new train line prospects are certainly out of the window. However there’s a possibility for light rail alternative along pieces of freight line. But as Scotland is no longer part of the EU I can imagine there will be tough discussions on funding. Anywhere great video as always
Would have liked to see mention of the much greater energy efficiency of steel wheels on steel rails, together with lesser generation of tire particles (assuming you don't have one of those rubber-tyred gadgetbahns).
For converting existing systems you would have to factor the significant economic damage that laying off that workforce would case. In NYC alone, there are about 3200 train operators and 2400 conductors on just the subway. These are good paying, union jobs that don't require a college degree. You would ruin those people's lives if you eliminated all their jobs. Conductors in particular pay for themselves easily through fare enforcement, fare evasion is trivial on an unstaffed train.
Excellent work, keep up your efforts to inform the public about the efficiencies of trains over buses and certainly over private passenger vehicles. Moreover, just as in the past suburban development occurred with the motor vehicle in mind we now need to plan developments with passenger dedicated train lines just as the Dutch do in the Netherlands as they reclaim land from the sea.
Energy efficiency and day-to-day maintenance are also important parts. Train wheels last very long, while bus tyres only probably replaced at least once a season, not mentioning pollution. And this is only one part.
But it's never the question whether to install busses or trains, but busses or trams. Depending on the topography/street layout busses can be faster and quieter than trams. Especially trolley busses, which last similarly as long. I'm currently pondering if a tram line instead of a trolley bus line is beneficial, but if your city already has a tram system, the synergic effects you can create with it benefit the system more than the trolley bus and it's a good opportunity to create more separated ROW with grassy tracks which also benefits the microclimate
The case for using trams is going to be stronger where there are alternatives to street running they can use, such as wide boulevard medians. Trams also must provide a type of service that does not require a vehicle that can swerve.
Hello Reece, Love your videos! Could you make a video on my city’s public transport system? Adelaide, South Australia. We have 6 train lines (4 mainlines and 2 branch lines) and 3 tram lines (1 main line and 2 branch lines. We also have a strange bus-train hybrid called the O-Bahn, which is like a bus but on train tracks. Although I do admit, our public transport is kinda bad. There’s 20 minute frequencies at peak hour I believe.
Would it be possible to have a video covering Pittsburgh's southern "library line" branch on the silver line? The city was looking to tear up the existing light rail line and replace it with a busway for "cost saving measures".
Pittsburgh's transit agency wishes it were just a bus agency. I think they see the city's light rail trains as just a distraction (that they are stuck with, unfortunately so in their minds) from the city buses.
@@1978dkelly If they were so concerned over ridership, they should find a means to incentivize housing supply along the corridor, provided people aren’t leaving the city.
The T needs more grade separation although Pittsburgh can function pretty well with a bus system, with a few rail lines within, much like smaller Japanese cities, because the geography of Pittsburgh has many hills and rivers, with many many walkable suburban nodes that are surrounded by mountains or the rivers. If the bus feeds into the main line of the T, it can be quite useful but it probably isn't good to tear up existing infrastructure.
Your financial argument is really good, since it doesn't focus on one being "better" than the other for complicated reasons. I'd say buses are the backbone only in places where there is no rail. Buses complement rail. A town with no public transport will start with buses, sure, but rail is what they need to be heading towards.
Too bad that on Vancouver Island, rail service is now firmly consigned to the past. _All_ ground transportation on Vancouver Island-as well as Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland-now requires rubber-tired vehicles.
WADR the London Routemaster (RM) busses ran for over fifty years but where often 'rebuilt' two or three times during that time at the Aldenham depot (aka Aldenham Bus Overhaul Works). As with any public transport all is good until the employees decide to take industrial inaction and the system shuts down. With a 'tag' like yours I am surprised you have not put out a video on you namesake.
Wow buses are expensive in the US, in the UK you could buy a brand new single-decker bus for around £170k or £250k for a battery hybrid or a diesel doubledecker for £300k to £400k for a battery-hybrid. A pure electric double decker bus is around £500k which at $645k is still cheaper than those single decker hybrids despite 20% VAT included in the price.
I would like to add that the Thameslink network already has ATO in passenger operation in the London Core area, whereas the tube is ATO on all but 2 lines i think
I wonder if the next LRT will be in Winnipeg MB or even Saskatoon SK. The bus is more versatile as it can go to housing developments where the homes are spread out, bringing people to the main line rail
Not sure if you've heard about Bill c-371, but this will give passenger trains right of way over freight. This supports the argument for trains even more (but the bill still has a long way to go...)
Here in the US, our transit agencies who run hourly buses and don't get riders somehow think light rail would solve the problem, but lack of network from buses then comes in. Also, if there's no existing demand, there's no way to know if anyone will use the light rail at all. I guess us Americans are a developing country working on the basics and there are even cities who think brt is good as light rail and think the problem with low ridership does with buses themselves, not service. Was just watching Canadian vs American Transit. For some reason, outside downtown service simply dissapears. Compare Uptown Seattle, with a web of frequent buses (and soon our light rail gadgetbahn that Reece seems to absolutely despise very deep down but WSBLINK should be isolated from the main "1 Line" completely and built as a light metro cheaper since its already going to be grade seperated but nvm) while Queen Anne Hill, still with decently dense development and a potential place to develop insanely from high rises instead of five over ones due to its proximity to South Lake Union/Downtown, has a single frequent trolleybus along Queen Anne Avenue, and all other routes are "not frequent" by King County Metro standards (more than 15min) but more like nonexistent. This is in a city somewhat hailed for (fake) urbanism and good (actually miserable but not the worst) transit derived almost completely from buses because Sound Transit builds induced demand parking, not trains. I guess it's really "flood your city with bus until you figure out train. I can't imagine how bad it is in the suburbs like Snomish County, which has NO ROUTES running more than every 20 min other than Swift BRT. Sorry, I had to go on a rant, I guess I forgot about your article on your website called "Everyone thinks their transit is worst"
thew problem is also that American cities refuse to allow for development near transit stations and then wonder why ridership is so anemic (LOOKING AT YOU CALIFORNIA). Half the benefit of transit is the new transit-oriented development it enables
@@mohammedsarker5756 Because in the US, there is a certain kind of person who gravitates towards housing near train stations, and who tends to end up destroying the place. It is easier to wreck an area in the US than it is to build one up.
San Diego's proposed Purple Line Regional Rail has an average stop spacing of almost 3 miles. I argued that this was too wide of a stop spacing given the Purple Line runs through dense areas. But someone else argued that we could simply run BRT lines parallel to the Purple Line and use that as the "local" service. Any thoughts?
So, not only would you be forcing interchanges on many potential passengers - hardly an incentive to use public transport - but you would have two sets of infrastructure costs rather than one to cover the same route? I just don't see how that could be viable.
Great video! Have to say, tho, 700k for a hybrid bus in the US is crazy expensive! Definitely the regulations are harming this. Easily it can cost 1/3 of this in LAC, for a premium state-of-art bus. Can't say the same for a light rail, seems to always cost +2M at the cheapest.
Did you see the automated night bus in Seoul? While staffed for now, I think the plan is to make it fully automated one day. Wonder if you have thoughts on that.
Why are bus tickets always way cheaper than train tickets then? Especially when you compare London buses and Thameslink (which have massive and efficient trains)
Around 4 years ago, german city Wiesbaden wanted to build a tram (and connecting it to the existing next door city of Mainz tram network). Unfortunately, the route was very questionable, for instance, they wanted to cut all trees along the route instead of literally letting the tram drive on the street next to it. So they made a public poll and citizens unfortunately voted against this route and since this was the only plan, against building a tram altogether. Did I mention, their busses are always overcrowded and stuck in traffic? It's sad they voted against a tram network, since the funding was already there, as far as I remember.
A train has a maximum amount of carriages, not just because super long trains make efficiency lower, if the train suddenly any problem occurs, it would be pretty difficult to evacuate so many people, like fire safety problem or security problem, etc.
Thanks for making this video! It really provides the deeper context behind all the other videos you've made about how so-and-so city (e.g. Seattle) built the wrong form of transit (light rail) than they should have (fully grade-separated metro). While you *touched* on the reasons in those videos, this video really dives into them and makes the argument much more clear. It also gives me ammunition in arguments with the NIMBYs who say we shouldn't waste all this money on rail when buses suffice (today). :)
4:38 I think a thing to fix this is have most cars on an EMU be powered, for instance BART trains, which are up 215 meters long, still have a whopping 1.3 m/s^2 acceleration. I think older EMU's or EMU's that have more unpowered bogies than powered bogies can be rebuilt with said more powerful traction motors to reach higher acceleration. With locomotive hauled trains, I see no reason why you can't have 2 locomotives on a long train; I saw this video of 2 MP54AC's hauling 10 bilevels with astonishing acceleration; if those were electric in sure they could have even higher acceleration, even when hauling 12 car bilevel trains. You could perhaps have a national lower restriction of how many cars a locomotive can haul, so you can have a desired acceleration for high frequency lines. I find it silly that GO doesn't run double headers on a regular basis, it would significantly increase acceleration, even with diesel locomotives (though electric is best). One more thing I thought about to increase acceleration is a hypothetical magnetic suspension system that has the weight of the carbody and passenger weight "lifted off" the cars bogies a few millimeters, so that the only weight you really need to haul is the bogies and suspension systems. I think this could work because most of a Maglev's energy (this tech idea was inspired by Maglevs lol) is used to accelerate it, not really suspend it, so it could work without insane electricity. EMU's are already really good at high acceleration, so this hypothetical technology would really benefit coaches hauled by locomotives. Some of my calculations put some locomotive services at almost, if not at, EMU performance.
I don't think magnetic suspension would help If all of the weight of the car and the passengers was taken off, the bogies would wheelslip like mad and you'd be going nowhere since there is too little pressure between the wheel and rail. You won't get any extra traction by decreasing the weight. And you'd still need to impart energy on the passenger car which would come from the traction between the wheel and the rail in order to make it move. Either way, you're limited by how much energy the motor can convert to kinetic energy
Buses compliment rail passenger transport as buses are: - They can run to destinations where heavy or light rail tracks do not exist. - When there are relatively small numbers of passengers, are cheaper to run than trains, with usually just a driver required to operate the service. - New services can be established very quickly. - Low emission urban metro, regional and inter-regional buses are rapidly becoming available. - They can operate on a route until there are sufficient passengers to justify a train service.
You compare 40-50 seats per bus, to the standing capacity of the subway car (30 seats, 210 standing). I don't think that's completely fair, you can also cram 100+ people on a typical articulated bus. Which makes the price per passenger a lot more even.
Agreed about standing capacity. But personally I just don't like buses and trains are so much cooler and better for the environment. Which we can't put a price tag on. Well I mean we can but ya know what I mean
The points raised in the video make sense, but only if passenger demand is expected to be so high that operating frequency needs to be set by capacity, rather than how long passengers are willing to wait. If passenger demand is such that maintaining wait-time standards with buses involves a half-full bus running every 15 minutes, the capacity advantages of rail over bus buys nothing (unless, of course, the intention is to degrade service by replacing a bus every 15 minutes with a train every two hours). Because passenger demand is only this high on a very limited set of corridors, even cities with world-class rail transit systems still have, and will always have, big bus networks to complement the rail.
If buses are not run at a turn up and go frequency, people need a way of knowing when to turn up at their stop, if they need to look at a timetable, they should be able to do so before getting there. They also need a way of telling which stops are timing points, for example of the sort of thing I mean, every terminus is to be a timing point, as is every railway station served by those buses. Early departures from timing points are not permitted. Which is better? A half-full articulated bus running every 15 minutes (if ridership needn't suffer at that frequency) or shorter half full buses running more frequently.
Buses have all the disadvantages of cars as well as the disadvantages of shared transit. You have to share space with people AND you're still stuck in traffic.
i think initial investment is the biggest issue, even if in 30 years trains would be cheaper a lot of cities can't afford to buy in and a lot of people are scepitcal when they see big price tag. just as example new tram line in krakow costed 600mil pln (~150mil $) for 5km of track, thats a lot of money and you need a lot of political will to do that, and metro will probably never be build because both initial investement and operations are too high.
isn't that a premetro though, so not exactly a new tram line per se? The main issue I have with Kraków is that it's infested with cars. And unlike North American cities, it's a recent(ish) problem because as well, not many people had cars until 1989. Seemingly every side street, sidewalk, square etc. is turned into a parking lot, with pedestrians getting maybe 40cm of sidewalk, if they're lucky, and there is next to zero cycling infrastructure in the city. The main drive for a metro in Krakow seems less to improve capacity for passengers, because Krakow is pretty good, but to avoid removing cars from the city centre. Krakow could give Amsterdam a run for its money with the right leadership, but the mentality of people here in Poland is still that a car is a status symbol and we can, must, and should make all trips in a car.
@@brick6347 nah 600mil was for tram to górka narodowa (tho I think it includes p&r), prametro was quoted at 5,8 mld in 2021. Kraków is slowly getting better and recent pools suggest that people are ok with pricer parking and reducing cars in center
Given how chaotic operation can get on a regular street, automating buses is a really bad idea. It could applied to segregated BRTs but that's about it. Operating automated vehicles alongside non automated ones can only be safe on a rail line when there is only the track and the signaling to worry about. That's why automation will always, for a long time, refer to segregated infrastructure, so for metros and trains. I'll die on that hill if necessary.
Can anyone point out to me if the 2.7m CAPEX for a train car in this video includes the rail infrastructure to run it? Or are we counting the existing road infrastructure for buses on the same footing as the rails for trains?
About 50 years ago we had lots more railway than we do now, almost all long distance cargo and passenger movements were made on rail, cars,lorries and buses were mainly short transport or sometimes a cheaper alternative, then slowly but surely the Government had lots of railway pulled up meaning a greater reliance on cars, lorries and buses for short and long journeys, the Government did it to themselves they had loads of railway in place but they forced more and more traffic onto roads
The problem is trains are very limited in where they run, I'll take my city San Francisco, BART has 8 stops in the city, 4 of which are clumped together within 3-4 blocks of each other, and all largely on the eastern side of the city, one is fairly central as far as east/west but is on the southern edge of the city. Caltrain has a few stops most of which are not very well used, also on the eastern half of the city, south eastern, and well if you wanted to ride anywhere else in the city you're hosed... unless you take buses which can get you most anywhere. The upside of the train is that it can take you out of the city which the bus is very limited to mostly because SF buses really only operate in SF (a couple small exceptions) and you need other county buses who have very limited stops in the city.
The perception that "buses are for the poor" DOES matter. All things equal, a train (or tram) will attract higher ridership because more people are willing to take them (even outside the US). If the route is the same, the tickets the same, the stations the same, cleanliness/safety the same etc this still holds true. It's only a marginal gain but in projects that are specifically geared towards increasing ridership it is an argument - you will get more people onto a new tram/train/sbahn/etc than on a new bus route.
A tram is also way more comfortable than a bus (smoother ride, better vehicles, less noise...), and these aforementioned criteria are too rarely taken into account
That's interesting, because that perception isn't a thing where I live (Singapore). Instead, some people might actually prefer the BUS over the train - all else being equal - because the perception is that buses are more relaxing and comfortable.
Marginal gain for a lot more infrastructure dollars. If there is frequent service then many people will find it useful, and the perception will dissipate. If the route is useful enough that buses are over-capacity even at 10-minute or better frequencies, or congestion means a dedicated right-of-way is needed to maintain reliable service, then a tram or train seems worth the cost.
@@moltenashalt5038 Buses can be very comfortable. Trains can be noisy and more of a rough ride. I took a coach bus in England and it was quieter and as or more comfortable with less shaking than the train on the same route.
@@scottalbrecht3578 trains also induce development alongside the routes they serve in a way buses don't since the former is more "permanent" due to the greater infrastructure. The fact US planners don't link transit and housing policy in sync is the source of so much of our urban dysfunctions
I will say right of the bat that buses don't already have to be as expensive as Reece says. I know in a 2019 article where it was stated that buses like the yutong e12 electric bus (which is very widely deployed in Denmark where I'm from, and considered very reliable and easy to maintain) cost just 378.000 USD in 2020 prices compared to say $503.000 for an Iveco/Heuliez gx337 electric, $558.000 for a Mercedes eCiraro, and $635.000 for a MAN Lions City Electric. Now these are 2020 prices after all but still, just goes to show the capital cost for a bus isn't always super high, even for electric models. If anything the high prices in North America might be because of the US. And Canada's protectionist policies like the BuyAmerica Act, creating a price gouged bubble.
$700,000 seems insanely high for a bus. The average cost of a semi truck is $120,000-$180,000 depending on the spec, a bus doesn't really have anything extra going on aside from a bus body and some seats. A bus chassis isn't too different from a truck chassis, both are going to run a diesel engine, the bus probably a bit smaller and less expensive engine vs a heavy truck, transmission is probably identical or nearly identical. Both run air suspension these days. Hybrid equipment isn't adding $500,000 to the price, especially with the tech being fairly mature at this point to the point where hybrid cars are costing the same as non-hybrid.
In Montreal, there is a tram project estimated at 10 billions. An equivalent SRB would be like 10 times least? With the remaining money you could operate those bus for a while.
General rule in the UK, and I assume the rest of Europe, is one single deck train car cost £1m, so how the hell does a NYC Subway car cost US$2.7m??? That's £2.1m. Why are they that expensive?
There definitely is a psychological aspect to buses versus trains, even if it doesn’t really make sense or isn’t accurate. I know a number of people who will ride out light rail, but won’t take a bus. Sometimes people just feel overwhelmed by the bus system and aren’t sure to go or are afraid of taking the wrong bus. Google maps makes this irrelevant for anyone with a smartphone, as it will tell you exactly where to go and what to take, but people are still bad at giving it a chance. They just feel more confident taking a train for some reason.
rail is more comfortable and in NYC at least, more reliable. It's a lot easier to look for the subway station than it is the bus stop and to make sure you're on the "right side." The pathfinding for buses has a lot of room for improvement. Rail is also good because it induces development along the route, thanks to the "permanence" the fixed nature of rails provide
"Sometimes people just feel overwhelmed by the bus system and aren’t sure to go or are afraid of taking the wrong bus." Count me among them. Though as a kid I regularly took the 609 bus from New Jersey into Philadelphia and back.
Trains are also often safer, even when the fare is identical to a bus. Transit operators usually put more security on trains vs buses and they're often cleaner and better kept.
That psychological aspect being the fact that buses, like cars (and trucks), are AUTOMOBILES. People see that a bus and a car are the same basic machine, and will NOT get out of their cars to board a bus.
Cost of infrastructure is the sticker shock that’s preventing trams from being implemented in my city in the US. Everyone wants them. Our DOT and transit authority doesn’t know how to scrape the $ for capital. I also live in Michigan, which historically has practically zero state funding for transit (both capital and operating), but somehow we always scrape together $500M for another lane on the interstate from the Fed. Go figure. But MI is quite poor when it comes to infrastructure investment. Major road projects almost always get subsidized with Fed dollars. All forms of transit are subsidized, not just public transit. We could apply for Federal grants to build new tram infrastructure, which can be used towards capital costs, but often not operating costs. As you mentioned, operating expenses with trains can be much lower than for buses. This might help us out in MI, since our state $ allocation for public transit lurches from one funding crisis to the next (how much public transit gets is based off the state government’s feeling of public transit that year). The challenge is that many states apply for the same Fed grants to build new tram/LRT/train infrastructure. There is competition across the nation for these capital grants. It’s not guaranteed you win funding. The only tram we have is the QLINE in Detroit, and 80% of its upfront funding came from private investment.
I live on the West Island of Montreal and we're getting our REM hopefully by the end of this year; but to the point of this video, yes, train would be great for whatever will end up being what was the REM de l'Est; but there is so much contention it seems building a train is a non-starter and they will have to continue to rely on buses. You calculated the CAPEX between bus and train but not the OPEX, but mostly I am curious about the OPEX when not at capacity; do trains still beat buses if both have only 5% of capacity in passengers? I ask because my West Island buses are often close to empty, and today I am taking an EXO train which will also be mostly empty.
In China getting bus drivers does not seem to big a problem. In Beijing they have hundreds of lines and some of them are very frequent. There are 20,000 buses in Beijing and if drivers work in shifts, they need even more drivers than buses. The printed book with all the bus schedules is massive and on some roads several buses per minute pass. Taking a bus in Beijing costs almost nothing. When I was in Beijing in 2008 a ride was less than $0.06. Today it is distance based. The first 10 kilometres are $0.28 and with the smart card you get a 50% discount. That is crazy cheap. So either bus drivers earn almost nothing or their salary is highly subsidized.
