The Mistake Too Many New Transit Systems Make | Why Mode Matters 

One more point about BRT, it creates a slippery slope that lets planners be more and more lazy. Here in Boston when they closed the Washington Street elevated, it was supposed to be replaced with light rail, then they scrapped that and planned BRT with electric buses at five minute headways, then because of cost cut it down to fifteen minute headways and buses powered by compressed natural gas which act like normal buses in all but name. The reason BRT was chosen over light rail was because of its flexibility, but the worst part was that it took fifteen years to build and is the most expensive BRT project in the world, with cost the same as it would have to just build the light rail.

According to American City planners, a 5 mile long mixed traffic streetcar system that goes 12kmph down a highly congested pedestrian desert filled with parking lots and strip malls is the best option.

Obviously the universal solution is the monorail.

the max orange LRT in portland has low ridership, runs every 15mins, has weak connecting bus service, and is slower than busses in mixed traffic, i think an important thing for transit agencies is not to put rail in corridors w/ low demand.

4:55 "not even as fast as highway traffic" To be fair, highway traffic in LA doesn't move very fast either.

Everything said here makes so much sense ! I mean I have an example: here in Brussels back in the 60's we built tunnels for trams but with a possible conversion to metro in mind. It only took 7 years (1969 to 1976) before metro services were introduced on the busiest line. And the second line conversion happened in 1988. Now we're converting our North-South line from trams to metros but it took a LOT of effort to start the construction. Because some politicians wanted to keep it a tram line with more frequency (the present-day frequency is already very high, when one tram leaves a station you can already see the headlights of the following one in the tunnel). And that point of view was supported by locals because these politicians said it would "paralyse the streets for 10 years" (even though it's basically just a retrofit, and the extensions and adaptations will be made using a tunnel boring machine instead of the cut and cover technique which was used for the rest). But luckily after lots and lots of effort they're converting that line into a metro, construction already started and rolling stock for this line has been put in the order of new trains for both the new and the existing lines (the first trains are in the process of testing for a few months now). Just one thing: your "tram" doors that pop out then slide and aren't adapted for people sticking their arms in are actually what most EU metro systems have been using for decades ^^ !

With ottawa, hindsight is something we can't forget. the NCC was refusing to talk to the city about how to go about the SJAM parkway, and that left the stage open for potential street running on carling to get to Lincoln fields. So they had to choose a train that could do that. Then about 6 months after construction had started the VIA-OC Transpo crashed happened, and the city turned against street running, but too late to change anything about mode.

I totally agree. In European cities, BRT is also rarely a good option as it can't run down wide avenues but is retrofitted onto awkward guided busways on narrower roads. In Leeds, there are guided busways on some of the arterial routes but the speed limit in them is 20mph - while on the neighbouring carriageway it's 40mph. Effectively, it's a waste of time for the bus to go into the busway except during the peak period.

transit systems worldwide: I WILL CHOOSE A MODE AND STICK WITH IT eglinton crosstown: i uh ia uh iuhhhhh help guys i uhhhh i cant decide

I'm from Ottawa, and I would like to say that we are essentially running 2 different rail systems; the east-west Confederation Line, and the north-south Trillium line. The problems you pointed out are all with the Confederation line, The Trillium line is operating on unused freight lines using European diesel multiple unit train sets. everyone I talk to seems to be in agreement that the Trillium Line is far more comfortable and has worked reliably for around 10 years, it's extension opens next year assuming no delays.

The Eglinton Line Vehicles will be accessible But there will be no need to press a button on the outside to have a ramp lower, unlike Downtown Toronto's Streetcar 🚊 System

Reece you forgot the elephant in the room: Eglinton Crosstown 😜 Which uses narrow body LRT rolling stock, at grade crossings, and simply can’t decide whether it wants to be Tram/LRT, Subway, or some other uniquely Toronto hybrid🤪🤪 classic identity crisis.

If BART had bi-level cars it would basically be a second Sydney Trains (hybrid commuter metro) which is a system I find kind of fascinating. Usually for a system that has any sort of "metro-like" aspirations, bi-level is out of the question due to dwell time issues caused by the number of doors per rider - an issue alluded to earlier in the video regarding Ottawa. Sydney itself abandoned the bi-level protocol for its newest project the Sydney Metro, while Melbourne which has a similar system has kept single-level EMUs despite experimenting with bi-level at one point. Globally, the busiest service that uses bi-level is probably RER A which for years resisted but then arranged a custom type of stock that has stairs and doors not just on the ends of the cars but also at the middle allowing 3 doors per side, but meaning the actual bi-level part of the train is smaller. They too have experienced dwell time issues and had to reduce peak frequency from 2 minutes to 2.5 (30tph -> 24tph). However, that one line has ridership of around 3 times that of BART. Whether bi-levels would actually have made BART better is an interesting question. Generally, I think it matters less how suburban a system is in terms of how far it reaches into the suburbs, and depends more on how it acts in the city centre. If it arrives at a station (or stations) that have multiple tracks and platforms (like Union), this allows higher dwell times without it disrupting total throughput making bi-levels attractive. But if it's a single track in each direction like a subway where no other train can arrive until the last one fully finishes unloading/loading then single level would be better. In this case it probable comes down to the choice for BART's central alignment during the planning phase. If they wanted a commuter rail it would be best not to make it a subway in the city. I think the real issue is that the Bay Area has grown a lot since BART was first planned and its capacity has just maxed out over the years. When they planned it, there was more than enough capacity for everyone to be seated which was the stated goal. The system will have its 50 year anniversary next year and I'm sure a lot would be different had they been planning it today.

Since the Gold Line in LA is being integrated with LA's other light rail lines, all three would need to be the same mode

all your videos are so well made! thank you for making Canadian-focused content!

I think some cities hear the "light" in light rail and assume it means lots of $$$ saved for a minimal loss in capacity and performance over a heavy (read: expensive) rail solution. But as you said, light rail is not a replacement for heavy rail.

There's nothing wrong with BART in terms of mode IMHO. It's closest to Paris RER in terms of functionality -- it functions as both regional rail and a metro, and does it pretty well. It has peaky demand, but it's built to be able to handle it, and it still has the advantage of frequent service. The interlining means the core sections get more frequent metro service while the edges get relatively frequent regional rail service. The biggest problem with BART came from the uniqueness of its design -- but it's not what you think. A lot of people point to the rail gauge, but Indian gauge isn't that weird as it's used by over a billion people in India and Pakistan, so it's not like there's no opportunity to share equipment development costs. It's also close enough to Iberian gauge that costs could be shared with the countries that use that since the fine tuning can be adjusted on the same equipment to correct for the small difference in gauge. The real problem with BART's design comes from loading gauge -- its tunnels are tiny. Only the Kolkata Metro line 1 is similar. BART's trains are wide but the vertical clearance is closer to London tube stock, which means a lot of custom engineering getting various subsystems to fit. The train control system is state-of-the-art 60's tech and really needs to be ditched in favor of a modern standardized system. Most of the teething problems in extensions and new rolling stock involve trying to get modern hardware to work with the ancient design. BART doesn't need bi-level rolling stock though. Its 10-car trains have plenty of capacity, and they could squeeze even more out of them if they had open gangways. If they replaced the control system with one that allowed shorter headways (they're trying to squeeze more out of the current system with power upgrades, not sure how successful they wil be), they could double their capacity. Aside from those two problems, the only thing really holding BART back is the absurdly high infrastructure costs in the US coupled with the byzantine process of getting projects approved. It took BART over 40 years of operation to fix its god awful banshee noises that were caused by the decision to use flat wheels to reduce hunting (when hunting issues at traditional rail speeds have since been largely solved with better bogies). It did get somewhat fixed though and BART is a far quieter ride today than it was a few years ago.

Many citys in Germany use buses and trams on the same lines and lanes in parallel, serving the same stations. That actually makes it a very scaleable system

Great analysis! Many thanks for this eye opening channel! 👍

Very interesting take on the "mode doesnt matter", however i think it was meant to be viewed from passanger side: it doesnt matter for a passanger (which i dont agree but whatever). It always matters a lot for agency. Alternatively, it could mean that mode shouldn't matter, politicy wise, like you said in the end. It doesnt matter which mode you build, but which one is appropriate and how good it is.

In Sydney there are a great mix of transit modes being researched, planned, designed and developed at the right place for the right purposes.

I'd love to see BRT lines be electrified and use trolleybusse, I think this would also make future light rail conversion easier Oherwise I 100% agree that new BRT lines should be planned with future conversion to light rail as an easy possibility even if the BRT line is foreseen to never be converted to lighrail

Can you please add more photos/stock video of these stations and trains when you talk about them? Maybe flash an overall map of each so we can get ourselves oriented? I'm not familiar with most of these metros but would like to learn about them through your videos.

Also relating to your thoughts about Ottawa's systems, how would you feel about the REM-Style system for O-Train instead of the current LRT. I know you "high-floor metro", I feel like a REM-Style system with trains just as long as the trams would work for that system had they designed it for it. I admit the Alstom "Metropolis" Systems grew on me, I wasn't excited for REM at first because the regional rail line it's replaced was rebuilt only 25 years ago but your videos kinda convinced me otherwise and now I'm looking forward to getting my passport to come up and ride and fan REM when it open.

There is another factor on the type of technology used that a lot of transit nerd aka engineering logical minded people don't want to admit or try to ignore: branding and public perception. What also matters are the class level and demographic of the types of people you want to attract to the transit system. Middle Class car owners are less willing to take a bus, even if its a BRT, than a train, and keep the car at home. So you should also take a look at the demographics of the transit area you are planning and determine what kind of rider you are trying to attract. Because it doesn't matter if a BRT is functionally the same as a light metro if no one wants to ride it.

Thank you very much! Very interesting point of view! If possible it can be really nice while hearing explanations to see actual images and videos of the transit system or the mode! I would really appreciate it!

You can do double Decker buses to go further than an articulated bus!!! We do it in London all the time for basically every route because of the ridership and especially for longer distances having the upper deck can be a lot more comfortable

I completely agree with this video. Nicely done

*Stares at Staten Island North Shore BRT project.

Excellent video and well presented. Ottawa LRT will be great but we have to live with BRT and vehicle constraints the you discuss

Reese I love your videos, but for the Gold Line you are leaving out some characteristics of the corridor that is extremely important to remember when considering the mode of transit picked for the Gold Line. -The Corridor the line uses is an old railroad corridor from the ATSF that has sharp curves, lengthy segments of street running through dense neighborhoods, and speed restrictions for conventional railroad equipment (like Sprinter between Oceanside and Escondido) that saw trains crawl from LA to Pasadena all the way up to the closure of the line after the Northridge Earthquake. -The line was part of a massive ROW purchase by Metro in the mid 90's, and it took a lot of wrangling to even get the line built since its construction coincided with the near meltdown of Metro in the late 90's resulting from the mismanagement of Metro's first 3 lines and massive NIMBY backlash to any kind of transit construction. The gold line has a lot of faults don't get me wrong. It has long wait times in comparison to other lines, has poor station placement in downtown Pasadena (actually kinda along the entire line oustide of South Pasadena and Chinatown), and piss poor bus connections/bus service the further east it goes. But ultimately it's probably the best we could get in means of travel time between LA and Pasadena given the restrictions of the corridor and the limitations that transit funding in LA provides. I feel like a better example of this is the East San Fernando Valley Corridor.

You are so knowledgeable!!!!! I LOVE watching your vids!!!! You should be a GM of a transit agency one day!!!!!

Many thanks for this video. I find it very interesting to compare the different modes and the reasons why one would be chosen over another. I'd be interested to know how suspended railways (e.g. Shonan, Japan and Wuppertal, Germany) compare with conventional light rail on viaducts.

I think Christof’s point was more about american transit upstarts in the coming years, which definitely should not continue to build those streetcars that don’t really go where people need it to go. Buses are sufficient. Idk maybe I misread that. It was a few days ago :P

That's what I keep thinking about my city. Honolulu is building a completely 100% elevated light rail. The way the island is laid out, I think a dedicated busway would've been better. Buses can provide local service in multiple different areas, then use the dedicated busway to get through the highly congested corridor between downtown and Central and West Oahu.

Can you make a Video about the karlsruher Modell its a Streetcar S-Bahn System that can also ride on normal german tracks

Very good point.

I do agree with a lot of points you have made. A number of North American transit systems really underestimated ridership capacity as, in my opinion, some transit systems still have the vision of North America being car oriented. I do hope that planners will be able to plan better for the future of transit in North America.

The Belgian Littoral tram has the opposite problem as Ottawa, it received trams meant for urban light-rail (premetro), but it operates mostly as an urban streetcar, they were too heavy and took too long to break, and the Belgian coast is rife with pedestrias in the summer

Brilliant. That's the only word.

"Sprinter train between LA and San DIego". That could have been phrased better. Technically it does exist between LA and San Diego, but its service is between Oceanside and Escondido, perpendicular to the LA/SD rail service of the Surfliner. Nitpicking I know. xD That said, you're completely wrong about Sprinter. Sprinter's top speed is 50mph. While the Desiro rolling stock is capable of higher speeds, the DMU configuration Sprinter uses does not have enough acceleration to achieve these speeds between stations and curves. To reach higher speeds it would need to either be electrified or the right of way straightened and/or have fewer stations. Consequently, the Gold Line actually reaches higher top speeds than the Sprinter does, as well as higher average speeds if you only count the area north of Union Station (which has far less street running than the east LA extension)

Again very informative and well structured. Regarding item 3, maximizing BRT to the max with more doors, You did not mention platform boarding. Sao Paulo has platform boarding on some routes. Curitiba started their BRT's with platform boarding. But you knew that. Cheers.

Oki, tipp for your channel, since i land more often here these days: Please explain what a acronym (like "BRT") means at least once per video, preferably the first time you use the term. :) While tedious and repetative for you and knowing Rail Fans, for new people who just come by on a RU-vid Suggestion it is really helpful to know what that thing is you talk about. Not all viewers are native english speakers too, and while i am sure i can google most of the terms, it's just more fun to watch a video that i don't need to interrupt to google what i'm watching about. Aside from that, keep up the good work, i'm from Berlin myself, we share public transit between DoubleDecker Trains (Regionalbahn) Light Rail Service (the famous S-Bahn), U-Bahn, Tram and busses. All in all you can get from A to B pretty good here... specially since by car you will get stuck in Communter traffic on a daily basis.

How do you feel about places that do “BRT Lite” instead of BRT or LRT? It’s basically a BRT Line without the dedicated ROW. Only one city here in Texas has real BRT (Houston) and even then I don’t think they constructed it along the correct corridor (METRO’s Uptown Line BRT). Austin & San Antonio has BRT Lite right now and I see no purpose for them.

Hi Reece, I'd love to see a video about an individual car transit system like Masdar city uses and how it could be planned so that it could better transition to a higher capacity system as the city grows.

Great video! Building a BRT system for a large city is indeed a terrible terrible idea.

In terms of building for the future, Brussels got it right, they built their subway as part of their tram network planning from day 1 for conversion and then, when enough stations were built on the line, they converted it to subway! They called that premetro!

I'm sorry but I gotta say it since you mentioned this in a previous video. The Sprinter runs from Oceanside to Escondido. It does not run from LA to San Diego. Maybe you're thinking of the Surfliner? Otherwise good video as always.

Great video Reece! Its weird how this view is somewhat controversial, it makes total sense!

As somebody who used to live in Ottawa while the crosstown route gets most of the talk concerns the crosstown route there's very little talk about the line that connects south Ottawa to downtown. That's because they utilize the single track CP line that had been abounded. For those who haven't been to Ottawa the line was originally constructed as a single track line for moving local freight trains. The line passes under Down Lake beside Carleton University. A second platform was built at Carleton but the obvious problem is that there can only be 2 trains on the line that meet at Carleton. If either train is delayed the other train has to wait. As for the Greater Toronto Area, the further north the system expands the less room there will be less room, if any for people in central Toronto who would normally take the train downtown. Is there any contingency for express trains from the North of Totonto to get downtown? New York has express subways but New York also has four-track lines to enable express trains to pass local trains.

Do not forget also in LA area the greater we have also other lines besides the Gold Line. I'll start an order from the oldest to the youngest 1. The first is the Blue line from downtown Long Beach to Downtown LA 7th and Metro Center. 2. Green line from Norwalk to Redondo Beach 3. Gold line from East Los Angeles to Sierra Madre Villa. 4. Expo line from 7th and Metro Center to Culver City 4. Gold Line Foothill Pasadena to Azusa 5. Expo extension to Santa Monica from 7th and Metro Center to Downtown Santa Monica. And also under construction is the Crenshaw line and Regional Connector

I couldn't agree more on your comments regarding BRT's. I've been shaking my head as to why Metrolinx is planning a BRT for Highway 2 through Durham. I believe this 10 year plan to put in a BRT in Durham is a huge mistake and that the smarter long term choice would be LRT or Tramway given the pinch points and distances involved. We have open space now to build a proper LRT that can grow with the density and which will provide a much more livable pedestrian experience.

i didnt really wanna watch this video but the thumbnail had the go and otrains in the thumbnail and they looked really pretty and couldnt stop myself,,,

In regards to you first point about LRT being bad at subway style service, I'm curious about your thoughts on Boston's Green Line. It runs like all the other subways in its tunnel under downtown, but most of the branches above ground (excluding the D branch and GLX) run like a typical tram in the median of avenues. Is this a worthwhile compromise, or is it kneecapping the potential of the Green Line core and would be better served via a transfer between subway and tram like the Ashmont-Matapan trolley?

the otrain/confed line was originally planned to have some at grade sections in the phase 2 expansion which is why they used low floor vehicles. of course though, it definitely should have been a system more akin to skytrain or REM from the get-go.

What do you think about Auckland's plan for an LRT line from the airport to city centre? I always thought a metro would suit that line better but they seem set on light rail. Canadian company CDPQ Infra has proposed to build it as a mostly elevated line which i think is better than the NZ Transport Agency plan which is to put it down the middle of (narrow) Dominion road amongst the cars. We are still waiting to see which option gets chosen. Might be built by 2030 if we lucky. Also apparently the northern busway was designed to be suitable for conversion to light rail in the future.

C-Line maintenance costs in Ottawa turned out to exceed the former costs of running bus service through downtown and consequently, they cut connecting bus service to the C-Line to hold the line on overall transit costs. That was a major complaint for Ottawa riders which was unfortunately overshadowed by the technical problems with the trains.

oot but is it okay for a city that cannot do road based public transport right to skip a stone building rapid rail transit? The city of Bandung is planning a Light Metro line connecting the future HSR station to the city center meanwhile Bandung does have a large but very fractured Bus network with 3 operators and a struggling but resistant to change taxivan system. And to top it the traffic is getting worse

Are there other examples of low floor ltrams used in a similar fashion As the Ottawa system?

Thank you for acknowledging that BART is much more commuter/regional rail than a metro! I've seen so many people try to compare it to the NYC subway, when it's much more akin to commuter rail in terms of coverage and how people use the system.

Do you think the stretch of the Crosstown between Ontario Science Center and Kennedy can ever be brought to rapid transit standards? (by either elevating the line or digging an underground tunnel)

To be fair to the YRT VIVA BRT, when they first started construction there were a lot of places where the lines were going past open fields. Jumping straight to a streetcar with that low density would have been really hard to justify, but it does seem like they did an ok job developing the routes to accommodate a future switch from buses to streetcars, if needed.

With ottowa the deciding factor was the low floor and since most trams are low floor. Refitting all ststions to be high floor$$$ so they likely just went with the cheapest low floor thing that can technically serve the route

Great thought Reece, just want to suggest you get a mic so your voice will be more clear and reduce ambient noise.

Allow me to make some points (sort of) in favour of BRT.. Capacity. Outside of vehicle size, the capacity of any transit system is constrained by either the minimum headway (minimum safe following distance), or the minimum dwell time (minimum time to stop, load and go at a station). If your primary constraint is headway, then you need to add lanes or tracks to the permanent way. If your primary constraint is dwell time then you need to add additional platforms to your stations. Heavy rail tends to be both headway constrained and dwell time constrained, meaning that the only cost effective way to grow capacity is to increase the size of the vehicles. Fortunately, heavy rail can support almost any size vehicle you can think of. For this reason, it is the gold standard of capacity. Light rail is typically dwell time constrained. This means that light rail theoretically could increase capacity just by adding parallel platforms to the stations. However, this is frequently not possible due to lack of space. For this reason LRT usually tops out at less than 20,000 pphd and since LRT vehicles are usually limited by the need to operate in less protected right of way (or even on the street), there is no real clear path for upgrading beyond this. Because BRT platforms are much smaller, and can fairly easily be arranged in tandem rather than side by side, BRT can usually be built fairly easily with as many platforms per station as you like. And adding additional platforms is generally easy enough. Thus, BRT can be fairly easily built or upgraded to the point that it becomes headway constrained. You'll probably hit this headway constraint with a fairly modest five or six platform BRT station. So a fully grade separated BRT could be built with a capacity of ~7,000pphd and then upgraded by simply lengthening the station to something in the 15,000 to 20,000 pphd range. Upgradability Because of the similar capacities, the real upgrade path from both BRT and LRT is heavy rail. To, this end, neither BRT nor LRT gives you much scope to design future upgrades into the system. Level of Service Because BRT uses many smaller vehicles, you can maintain a high level of service, even at times when demand is lower (if you corridor has low demand periods). Although larger vehicles come with lower per seat operating costs, the vehicles typically have a higher absolute operating cost. This means that a larger vehicle (such as LRT or heavy rail) ONLY saves you money when it runs less frequently than a lighter vehicle (such as a bus). On higher demand routes, this doesn't really matter. A bus that comes every 30 seconds does not have a meaningfully higher level of service than a train that comes every 3 minutes. However, a bus that comes every 5 minutes does have a much greater level of service than a tram or train that comes just twice an hour. Coverage BRT can be designed as an open system (ie all buses stop at most or all BRT stations and then leave the BRT and serve an an on street "feeder" route before returning to the BRT). In fact, where demand is high, open system designs are naturally less prone to bunching. (This is because passengers looking to travel to another BRT station will board the first bus that comes along, while those looking to travel to off BRT stops will often wait for a specific bus to come along). Open systems have the advantage of providing more competitive transit to a wide, low-density corridor than rail based systems can provide. Here I need to say something about transfers. Transit riders tend to view the different phases of their journey differently. They count the time spent waiting for the bus about twice as negatively as they count the time spent moving in vehicle. They count time spent in a stationary vehicle about 1.5 times more negatively as time spent moving. And (depending on the quality of the transfer), they may count time spent transferring more than three times more negatively as time spent moving in vehicle. Transfers can be good for ridership if (and only if) the transfer reduces wait times (by increasing frequency) substantially enough to overcome the negative impact of the transfer itself. This is by no means impossible. However, if the feeder route has only marginal demand (as is generally the case in low density suburbs), it is simply unreasonable to run that feeder at a high enough frequency to offset the downside of a transfer at the station. BRT eliminates this transfer at the station and so is potentially more effective at coaxing people out of their cars across a wider corridor. Of course, BRT has many downsides, which I won't go into. But these features really do give it a genuine niche that is more than just providing transit to places with low demand.

Coming from China I thought determining a transit mode by politicians was only a Chinese thing, until I traveled to North America... A very interesting case study on this topic worth looking into is the Zhuhai Streetcar System. It was built in 2017 as China's first modern streetcar system, and now they're talking about dismantling it...

the problem with a lot of transit system is the politics. a lot of system maybe optimized as abc in the beginning but due to politics, xyz was chosen. you should work for Translink in BC.

Reece, we should have exported our outdated and hated Pacer trains for them to use. See Geoff Marshall's video about the last Pacer that he rode on.

Is there some sort of technical limitation making the maximum speed of LRVs 55mph? I am not familiar with any that can travel faster. There's a decent amount of systems that could be improved just with faster vehicles.

Just most of the transit systems built in the US (and other North American cities) All too often, Metro and S-Baum systems use low-floor “traims”. Houston really should have theirs be an elevated metro and so should Dallas (and add an S-Bahn too) And don’t get me into the concept of using Bus Rapid Transit in replacement for metro and tram. Yes I said “traim”, something like Charlotte and Houston where it’s basically a train and a team combined

Will Toronto ever have another subway line?

In the Americas, the problem goes beyond just choice of mode. Often, the whole concept of a transit system just isn't up to what the city needs. For instance, Los Angeles has its rapid transit + light rail sized more or less for Boston, whereas Los Angeles needs a system more like that of New York: Full metro with quad track lines having express and local trains, only elevated instead of underground, to avoid the problems with underground gas (which was an actual serious problem when the Red + Purple Line was under construction).

Have you looked into Halifax's future BRT or public transit as a whole. Would like to know your opinion on it? As one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, it's strange geographical bounds, and increasingly bad traffic; I would be interested to hear your opinion on Halifax's future for public transit. Cheers!

So what could have been the reason why Ottawa chose loor floor vehicles?

I don't live in Bay Area and haven't for years but I feel like people either don't really comprehend or maybe don't care how much faster and farther BART is and goes compared to other systems. As a way to get from 24th and Mission to Embarcadero, BART might seem pretty mundane and a light rail with similar grade separation or whatever would probably not be a huge difference in speed. but what the transit literati (highly urban dwelling set generally) don't always appreciate is that ta huge amount of passenger miles traveled on BART are from relatively long trips. Just Walnut Creek and the 4 other farthest flung stations on the Pittsburgh total over 100K rides annually and from the closest of them (Walnut Creek) to Civic Center (middle of SF?) is over 24 miles my car and is done in 42 minutes by BART. And that's while making a series of very slow stops in downtown Oakland. Compare that to Chicago L going from O'Hare to Washington L stop on blue line (both are single train no transfer trips).... The L's trip is less than 20 miles and takes 50 minutes. This isn't a cherry picked example, it's typical. BART averages about 35 MPH including stops. I couldn't find the L speed but NYC subway is 17 MPH average. I have serious doubts that any double decker commuter train could match that kind of performance especially in Oakland and SF where stops are quite close together.

"can match the capacity of a metro" London Underground Victoria Line: Good luck running *400* buses per hour!

As a daily Bart rider i have to disagree. Bart's main issue is station spacing, and too much focus on suburban extensions first than the core areas of the system. The cars are fantastic. I doubt double decker trains would be able to handle the constant speeds Bart cars maintain currently especially on curves. Part of the reason Bart made those cars and spaced the gauge was for faster speeds on curves and stability for potential service on the golden gate bridge due to high winds. Once bart builds a new tube, some new lines and stations (infill as well), and some redundancy in SF and Oakland, the system will be fine. I've rode almost every metro in the US, and Bart along with DC metro are the fastest. Bart IMO travels the fastest between stations than most other systems.

A case in point where reality might be a little more complicated: Hasselt (B) - Maastricht (NL). Ideally, this should be a train, it's only 30 km, there's a disused railway line which is mostly untouched, trains could continue onward from both stations, and travel time (with a number of stops and the line speed at around 120 kph) would likely be around 25'. But politically, there's no interest on the level that's responsible for regular rail, and that's why the local governments came up with an alternative: a light-rail. It would run as a tram in both cities, so for onward journeys, you'd have to change, would be slower (about 40' travel time), but would serve the cities' centre, as well as a University campus along the way, that's too far from the existing railway. While not as good as the train, it's politically achievable, there are a few advantages, too (especially serving the university campus, which is one of the most car-dependent campuses in the country), and most importantly, it would replace the slow buses that need almost an hour. Should the best be the enemy of the good?

We don’t do Bi-levels in the UK. Partly because we invented trains and so all our tunnels and bridges are too small (some of the midland mainline isn’t even capable of handling high top containers) but also because our stations are closer together and bi modes massively increase dwell times. I’m surprised you touched on this for trams but not for bi levels. Longer single deck trains running closer together are far better than less frequent, fewer but bi-levels car consists.

Great analysis. I think BART had to build the smallest diameter tunnel possible under the bay because each tube is 4 GD miles long. The Gold line in LA is maybe the right mode with the wrong vehicle spec. Dallas DART LRT vehicles go 60 plus MPH. Also high speed gearing reduces acceleration rates. A mile between stops affords little chance to enjoy a higher speed than 50 for more than a small pct of the distance. And Phoenix, hoo boy, its about 90 minutes from one end of the line to the other while embedded in the local street network. Nothing can fix that. We need cities that grow no larger than a 30 minute walking radius, then everything can be done with bikes and human powered electric assist vehicles. But cities are just wealth generating machines for the very rich, as our current economic set up dictates. The smartest planners can't compensate for that, nor can the politicians who spout gibberish about equity.

I am from the Bay Area and with BART the future is past.

The sprinter goes between LA and San Diego?!?! Nahhhh, it doesn't even go to either city. It's a weird LRT/ Commuter rail service in the cities of northern San Diego county. As far as I know, the only rail service between LA and San Diego is Amtrak, unless you take the coaster rail and then transfer at Oceanside transit center onto Metrolink, but that'd take forever

Linking back to your video of the Grand Paris Express, don't you think some of the (very long) lines in this project are constructed with the wrong mode in mind? To me, it seems like it would make more sense to integrate them into the RER network (few stops, fast, comfortable) rather than seeing them as new subway lines (more stops, less comfortable). I think we should at least try to avoid people commuting by subway for more than 45 minutes or so.

someone who knows how to make things work. we have a vacancy for a chief minister in the UK at the minute.

And to think here where I live, when people have to wait more than 5 minutes for the bus they start complaining, ahah!

Bart would really struggle if it was a bi level, yes there are sections where you wait for 10-15 mins but most stops are just a few mins apart. Bart really just needs to add 2 more tubes increase speed in them and add more frequency. Bart if it could reach 6-10 trains during rush hour and 15 at off hours would 2x the capacity. the other issue is bart has horrible feeder transit outside of SF

So, what should these cities do now that they've made the wrong choice?

Everytime new stuff comes in always have problems.

Hey, I've really been enjoying your videos, they are really informative and interesting. However, I have come across a couple of things I think you could work on. First, you often bring up names for transit systems (and sometimes other things) without introducing them, for example BART in this video. This can be very confusing when you are not familiar with the system in question. Along the same vein, when using transit systems as examples, it can be hard for viewer to visualise the example when they are unfamiliar with the system. If you could provide maps of the systems or picture of rolling stock, as well as arrows when talking about a specific part, it would help a lot. Lastly, and less important, its very noticeable that you are looking to your right (the viewer's left) every couple of seconds, I assume there is some type teleprompter there, if so I would recommend moving it closer inline with the camera. Once again, I enjoy your videos, this is just some constructive feedback. Keep up the good work!

transit systems in Germany: All the same Crosstown: tu n'entende pas ma moulin lon la

ottawa lrt has the highest ridership in NA

Well, I prefer light rail to bus routs because buses can and have gotten stuck in traffic. I have never been on a light rail tram that has gotten stuck in traffic. Subways and L-trains are nice only if you have the population to justify their existence. I have ridden on BART many many many times and have always thought of it as a regional metro system for the bay area megalopolis. I have also wondered why other megalopolises haven't built their own regional metro system. And another thing, Why not just convert the BART into a functional high speed rail system, oh wait, taxes will go up from insane to foolish levels.

We should ONLY have grade-separated heavy rail and conventional busses. Light rail or BRT are the worst of both worlds. The problem with buses is they are too small, too crowded, and they stop too often. Busses have to deal with traffic and run indirect routes. The NY busses for example average a paltry 7.4 mph! You can bike faster than a NY bus. Can you imagine trying to convert the the NY metro system to busses? New Yorkers would laugh at the idea. But busses do have a role in filling low density neighborhoods. Light rail is an awful idea...it is just as slow as a bus, but is also super inflexible as pointed out in this video. Heavy rail with grade separation is best...not only for speed, but for safety. Yes, it costs more, but sometimes it can be more prudent to spend a little more upfront to get a proper transition solution...and not these light rail compromise solutions that politicians con voters into supporting.

What kind of idiot says mode doesn't matter? Never heard that, and I'm glad for it.

I love this content but my dude, this room you're filming in has terrible acoustics. I know you can record perfectly fine audio from your other videos, it's only when you're in this room to film your self I guess? Audio quality is everything, if you can't get good audio quality and have your self on camera then just don't have your self on camera, just do a voice over with pictures/slides.

I live in Ottawa and I've used the O-Train often prior to the pandemic. I never understood why they opted to use low-floor trams when it was never planned to run on streets or need to accommodate street-level low platforms. Even in Calgary they use high-floor trains that runs on the street! And the station stops are very long compared to what I would see in Montréal, where it takes a few seconds to open the doors, and they're open for only about 10 seconds. But I would argue that the amount of seating should be high in this system because the O-Train network is really meant for suburban commuters even though it does not look like it is now. That brings me to one complaint I have about our transit planning, that very little is being done to improve transit along existing inner city corridors such as Rideau/Montréal Road, Carling Avenue, Bank/Bronson, etc with the exception of Baseline Road that is getting a BRT.

To summarize: Every transit system should be fully built out as a subway. Unfortunately we don't all live in SimCity where we can cheat and play with unlimited money. And that's the problem with so many transit planners - they think big, they build big, and the region suffers the consequences as then the budget cuts come. And of course, because we built the massive huge rail systems that everyone had to have, the lowly bus gets cut. The next complaint: "Why is there so much traffic?" Mode absolutely matters, and building something too big or expensive can be devastating to a transit system as well. Who cares about a "system" that has a small number of rail lines that are nice and wonderful, but large parts of your metro are unserved altogether? BRT isn't perfect but you seem to demonize it quite well with many assumptions, while ignoring the benefits of what you claim are drawbacks. A typical light rail line has two tracks, one in each direction. There's little or no ability for trains to pass each other - so if one train has a mechanical breakdown or other emergency, the entire system grinds to a halt stranding thousands of riders and causing a mass scramble for buses to provide rescue service (never mind the riders who just got kicked off of those buses.) Those massive passing lanes that you decry? Now a bus with a breakdown can pull over and stop, those riders simply switch to another bus, and the system remains fluid. Every mode of transport is scalable to a point. Even trains. But just as every airline in the world doesn't automatically buy the largest aircraft (a Boeing 747 or an Airbus A380), having a 10 car subway train for every trip isn't necessary either. You wouldn't use a sledgehammer when a tack nail does the job, and you don't build freeways to serve individual homes.

The transit system for me has been downgraded. With the previous system, I could use one bus to go to work. Now I have to take multiple modes of transportation.

Sprinter is east west train from Oceanside (near San Diego) and Escondido (also near San Diego) nowhere near LA lol

The Gold line is a bad example because it is going to be taken over by the Blue and Expo lines.