The biggest advantage of light rail that you didn't even address, it is almost impossible for it to be watered down halfway through the project. It is a routine occurrence for BRT projects to start as "light rail, but on rubber tires" and end up as a bus route with fancy stops, potentially without a single mile of dedicated right of way. Once you commit to light rail and break ground, you pretty much have no choice but to follow through (unless you are going to just give up the project all together, which is normally not very politically expedient).
^ Pittsburgh is a good example of this. A proposed light rail extension to Oakland was downgraded to a “BRT” route and is now being further downgraded to essentially a bus stop consolidation of existing surface routes.
Cleveland (whose light rail was featured briefly in this video) has another great example: They added a BRT line that went more-or-less to the same places as an existing rail line, with the "feature" that it takes almost twice as long to get there, less efficiently, and the lanes that are supposed to be clear of car traffic aren't.
I wanted to write a comment to share, that right of way not necessarily is given with tram-like systems. Then I checked it and light rail is slightly "above" tram systems as in a bit faster and a bit higher capacity why they aren't on streets. Therefore your point is still valid.
Look at Seattle. Classic example metro’s rapid rides are watered down from what was originally designed. Thankfully, of the six lines that have opened, three will be supplemented by light rail in the general proximity of the rapid rides so it becomes less of an issue in three or four years.
33:00 You got the acronym wrong. It's S.H.I.T. 01:38 They do have rolling resistance, just not very much. It's, weight force in newtons multiplied by CRF (0.0015).
I agree with your conclusion, but you are forgetting to mention the flexibility of buses. You can build a BRT in the busy middle section and then continue as regular buses on 10 different branches afterwards. Even if each branch only has a bus once every 30 minutes. That would be very expensive with light rail.
I lived in Utah where they have Trax (light rail) and UVX (BRT) and they were both very comparable. There were some drawbacks to UVX but the drawbacks were better than the extra cost it would have taken to make light rail.
We have light rail here in Salt Lake City. We also have buses and diesel commuter rail next to Union Pacific freight rails. My favorite buses are in London, UK. They are iconic to that culture.
1. Of course the trains still have rolling resistance. It's far lower than the bus wheels, but it's still there. 2. I guess the potential advantage of BRT would be possibility to enter the normal cars infrastructure with ease. 3. BRT is cheaper to build*, and have less footprint. * - to build. In long term costs of maintenance makes it more expensive, but people tend to look only at build costs, and politicians want reelection. That saying I still strongly prefer Light Rail.
I think BRT is just an intermediate towards light rail. It is never meant to be a permanent solution. It is also cheaper to build and allows a lot of flexibility. Of course, the last step that needs to happen after building a good BRT system is to put in metal rails and replace those buses with metal cabs.
Another item omitted was the fact that bus-based transit networks need additional police patrols to keep cars and even trucks out of rights-of-way specified only for bus use; this happens to be a huge savings item seldom considered.
@@MalachiWhite-tw7hl Because as we all know the solution to the giant traffic lines in say every major american city is just increasing the width of the streets and highways!
@@GuyWithInternet.that’s not what they were trying to get at. No matter how perfect the public transit system is, there will still be people that need or want a car.
im pretty sure the O-Bahn only exist in South Australia because all the lines that are shown in the video i have seen before and i am a resident of South Australia
In Portland, some of the light rail tracks run on the downtown streets, so that the trains have to deal with car traffic, somehow. This is a good and cool idea.
Your Train Evangelion thing has a 142 Pacer on it, which I used to ride on for my work commute up until 2021. Those were the days. I miss those old trains, even if they weren't as nice as the newer 769s (which are just refurbished 319s).
Sydney is using the Light Rail in several ways: 1) replace bus routes that have high usage as the Light Rail has a higher capacity thus carry more people, 2) to turn the high street back into a pedestrian friendly environment (see George Street, Sydney), 3) reuse old freight lines/low usage train lines as Light Rail transport, and 4) encourage more transit-oriented development.
You make excellent points, good sir, but you are wrong for 1 simple reason: the light rail is too reminiscent of the trolley problem and I just can't risk ending up in a quandary like that, even if rails are overall safer.
I agree with most of this video, but I still think buses have a pretty big flexibility advantage. It’s true that buses require a turning loop while LRVs don’t, but I think the fact that buses can be routed on any road they want outweighs the minor inconvenience of not being able to just drive backwards. After all, if space is so limited that you can’t build a turning loop, it’s probably because you’re in a city core where buses would just run on the normal streets anyway.
Busses and rail compliment each other. Where i live people usually take the buss from home to the train and buss from the train to work. Think of it as the train line being the thick veins and artery the buss for the smaller blood vessels and your legs as the capillaries. Do i even have to argue why legs are better than Bus or rail for short distances?
Trains are just objectively nicer, more comfortable, more spacious and safer to ride on for the consumer. In reality, both the pros and cons even each other out (as others have pointed out, individual maintenance is cheaper but you have to maintain infrustracture etc.). The biggest issue is that when a city decides to put in a train service, they often do it because of the unreliability of schedule of the busses but never replace the busses themselves - so you end up with both systems operating under-budget, with more city bureaucracy, and less useable infrastructure to the public as now the BRT lanes are still restricted to bus only and trains lines are where there were none before. Also every light rail (or any rail) initiative nowadays is hijacked by environmentalist movement, who start arguing that trains pollute less - which is objectively true and false (they pollute less in the immediate vicinity, but shift and localise pollution to power plants) while opponents tell them that no - electricity production still pollutes (same thing, objectively true and false - same pollution just localised to power plants). So now instead of a discussion about the actual reasons, advantages and disadvantages to the proposals, it becomes a politically ideological driven debate about irrelevant BS.
I like to say: The advantage of trains is steel on steel has no resistance, the disadvantage is steel on steel has no resistance. It's a blessing and a curse. The blessing less energy use, the curse, climbing steep grades is hard.
I'm not sure if I agree. Sure, all of what you said is true, but there are a few missing things, in my opinion. First, while the cost analysis you did is probably correct, the upfront cost and infraestructure managment is too high for cities which have nothing like it. I live in a third world country, I'm from a city in the countryside; it would have been impossible to start a project like this, and more so without any prior experience. These buses are the imperfect solution to an existing problem and they can be implemented almost instanteneously. Next thing is flexibility; specially in area that are currently developing this is a must. If there was a light rail system in my town, that would have forced the city to plan ahead in a way that is simply not possible. And... it would not have integrated with the current system. For better or for worse, you can choose to have those buses on the dedicated lanes extend their path or to just run on normal streets if necessary. You can't do that with a light rail system. And last, this doesn't take into account terrain. If your city is simply to irregular and not very smooth a light rail system becomes not impossible, but really impractical. If, say, the city center is literally on a hill and other parts of town are in other small hills conected by valleys well... there's no easy way to conect this without massivly extending the line and probably bulldozing things in the process. I want to clarify that I'm a massive rail ways fan, the meme at the end was amazing. But reality sometimes makes them quite difficult to implement.
I noticed the video at 3:00 was the Phoenix light rail not because of the fact that light rail was traveling to Mesa but because the Fillmore road sign in the back had the small symbol of the cities seal/flag and I am just wondering why the hell my eyes went straight to that instead of the more obvious markers
Wasn't it in Melbourne, Australia where the people were offered high quality BRT and rejected it in favor of light rail. They already had both and had experience with each, and knew the difference. Also, when I think of Japanese trains, I never think of Railgelion. I think of Train Man, which had an opening based on the opening film from Daicon IV. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ia9JVKSf-c0.html
Got banned from a right wing community for talking about trains and apartments. Was just trying to figure out their stance and devolved into schizo anti government ramblings. truly I understand what you are fighting now. Keep doing good work
I thought for a hot second you where talking about DART dallas area rapid transit. The light rail is supioror to the buses. I was like yep. Not gonna lie. Its true.
Some of the facts in this video are questionable. Volvo makes a 300 passenger BRT bus. The Mexico City Insurgentes BRT line runs every 90 seconds and carries over 600,000 trips per day. With required train spacing, what is the maximum frequencies of street running light rail LRT. With maintenance cost of the rail, signal, and traction power systems, LRT is double the cost to operate as BRT. For the same money BRT can run twice as often. BRT can accelerate and decelerate faster than LRT. The extra weight of LRT uses more energy. There are electric BRT buses. BRT is 1/2 to 1/3 the cost to build as LRT.
LRT only makes sense on a dedicated guideway; level crossings and short city blocks can be problematic and almost anywhere that a light rail system integrates with traffic it fails miserably in comparison to buses. Many cities have tried to build LRT only to find that for double the cost the service was 0-10% faster than express buses. Unless it’s on a dedicated guideway LRT does not make sense for many cities - and indeed this is what almost all of the systems you show are doing when outside of core downtown areas.
lrt is superior because you don't get sick as easily as a pasenger. ha! seriously though, i lived in a kinda hilly own for some time, and when the bus goes around badly maintained roads and curves and ge's stuck in traffic for 20 minutes (sometimes i would have been faster to walk home for 30 minutes than take the bus), i regularly got so nauseated that i felt like throwing up. only times i felt like that in trams was when i was geniunly sick or really drunk (and I've used trams nearly every day for most of the past two decades)
All the "heavy metro" rubber-tyred trains have also metal wheels behind the rubber ones. Only light metros like the French VAL and airport people movers have only rubber wheels.
You left out general quality of the ride as well. Steel rails are smoother, quieter and allow for curb-level handicap access. They also look cool as hell.
@@ligametis ...... ur kidding right? they genuinely are shittier for the environment in every possible way, they tend to be really bouncy and uncomfortable, and they’re factually less efficient. buses are good cheap alternatives but don’t kid yourself calling rail a “downgrade”. that’s just your weird opinion bro
@@louisaugustexvi4515 trains are outdated tech from 1800s. No surprise they were mostly replaced by other types of transportation in early 20th century. Rail almost never goes where you need exactly (can't have everywhere) and it is less frequent. Who cares if it's bouncy you aren't writing a novel there.
@@ligametis look at Hongkong, Rotterdam, Den Haag (The Hague), Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Prague, Antwerp, and Bucharest to name a few of the HUNDREDS of light rail systems in the world. Also YOU (probably) HAVE LEGS and are capable of walking or cycling to your end destination like a normal person. Combined with the BETTER COMFORT compared to busses (Amsterdam uses tram, metro, bus and train)(I have been in both plenty of times). So please quit blabbing your mouth unless you want to say something ACTUALLY useful to the future (a middle step back towards light rail might be trolly busses). Who cares that the basic technology is hundreds of years old, don't reinvent the wheel and for god's sake the ancient Egyptian quite accurately calculated the diameter of the earth. They did this by seeing the difference in angle at high noon in 2 of their cities.
Growing up in Boston and moving to Austin, I was floored that people didn't know the benefits of light rail. You hop on a few blocks from your location, drunk or sober, and 5 minutes later you arrive at your destination. No parking, no waiting, no nothing. It is an amazing way to live
When did I get so invested in public transportation? I swear a few months ago I wouldn't bat an eye at any kind of transportation but now I'm watching videos of varying depth to see what the differences between all of them.
I would suggest that the reality that you cannot re-route the LRT - is a minus - but also a plus. One of the reasons it spurs development beyond just proximity to station - is that because it cannot be easily re-routed there is a greater belief that the service will be there.
Could also be interpreted as a negative when it comes to getting LRT approved. Much easier to get politicians to picture trialing some paint on the ground than it is ripping up the street for a few years to lay track.
It cannot be rerouted, but it can be killed just as easily as any public system. This happened so many times... "Greater belief" certainly matters - belief in responsible governments, belief in the power of the public opinion - but not the railroad per se.
@@jmi5969 Exactly. Pittsburgh has an entire line that is basically not in use now. They keep it in place for detours of other lines. It's a shame, but the ridership wasn't there (I guess).
@@uisblackcat yeah, the American Dream is the death of the US economically. 😕 The American Dream aka car focused development is not self-sustaining unlike people focused urban development. 🙂
@@pbilk Not really, suburbs can easily be converted to higher density and houses can become businesses in some areas creating commercial zones that serve the community. Ultimately the empty spaces will be filled in, roads and intersections made a more reasonable size, and parking lots will be built over. The burbs will become no different then small towns, and then they will be self sufficient and sustainable; as long as the US keeps immigrating more people to fill in these areas that is. And don't forget that urban areas can have too many people crammed in and not enough open areas for parks and recreation, so there is a point of diminishing returns as population density increases. But I don't buy into this whoah is me, we're all doomed nonsense, the reality is we will build the future that makes sense, just as the past generations did when gas was cheap and life centred around the automobile. That's the wonderful thing about capitalism and democracy, it doesn't take you or I making colossal decisions for everyone else; instead each person will automatically do what makes the most sense. Food desert, new grocery; a house becomes a hair salon, someone cant afford the taxes so they build a new addition on their house and rent it out; everything that is not economical will be turned into something efficient that works. And that's the beauty of the free market.
The fact that Winnipeg is so infamous for being a city that will soon hit a million people in its CMA and probably won't have a single LRT line that its reputation crossed border lines is hilarious.
This is an older Armchair Urbanist video and there are a few flaws with it, I know. But hopefully you stick around, I will be making a second part to this soon!
This is really a false comparison; you started with a system that you liked and then searched around for a system that was even worse. Light rail is totally stupid, the infrastructure, the tracks, the overhead wires, the way it causes problems with regular road vehicles and poses a danger to pedestrians. Regular buses, that use regular vehicle lanes and therefore share the road with other vehicles, are vastly more efficient as they can go literally anywhere there is a road. Also there are already fully electric variants and these will only improve as time goes on; and in addition to that they will soon likely be fully autonomous and require no driver, drastically cutting costs. And while a driver is still required, for now, there are extra long, or "bendy" buses as you called them, for high capacity routes. Electric buses can have their routes changed at any moment, even for city wide events, and for all these reasons they are by far the best option!
@@tidbit1877 u just can’t comprehend the true benefits of light rail as it is so amazing and power the perfection of it goes over ur head as ur preference to brt fogs ur mind
Light rail costs more money to implement now. But if the automobile hadn't destroyed America, we'd probably still have all the trolley systems we had back in the day and the costs would be much less of a problem.
This was intentional. GM and Goodyear originally invested in the Yellow Bus company which slowly bought out light rail companies. A simultaneous serious of pro-bus articles talking about "how great the modern bus" and "the modern answer to urbanization". LRS were more efficient... Until the companies started "expanding routes" with buses.
Yes. Cars destroyed America. Spoken like a true woketard. We should all go back to riding horses, riding stagecoaches and riding in covered wagons. All that horse manure laying in streets and all the dead horses were so much better for the environment. Of course, back then, people heated their homes with wood and coal. Just because you have an education doesn't make you smart.
Im from san diego, and am enraged that the city has chosen to go down the rapid bus route rather than expanding our light rail system like LA has. Its even sadder since our city was the first in the US to use a modern light rail system
Yep. Houston is doing the same and I think it’s a mistake. Though Houston’s lrt system is nothing more than a tram. But they are still better than BRTs.
The car basically ruined all of America's mass transit back in the day. So many lines were abandoned and removed after cars took over and now most cities can't afford to implement rail.
I think Railgelion would be superior to NGE, as the more linear and efficient story will allow more clarity to the viewer and less congratulations bad trips
2:45 can confirm that in Zagreb some trams still have those little plaques that say "Made in Yugoslavia 1972" and still run. They're maybe a tad less comfy than the new ones, but still get you from point a to b just fine.
I mean, Wuppertal still has the _Kaiserwagen_ (lit. emperor's carriage) that was actually built especially for the inaugural visit of the german emperor and his wife when the _Schwebebahn_ (suspension railway) was build in *1900* - it ran until 1997 for special events and bookings, since then it is maintained as a museum piece but is _technically_ still operable as intended.
THe two system can work well together or separately. Efficiency isn't the bigger issue: network connectivity is the killer issue. If you have discrete systems in towns, or between cities with sprawling suburbs, then the fact you have to get in a car to get to the BRT or Rail defeats the whole thing, since once you have to get in the car, you might as well complete your full journey in car, and have it available for all the other side trips you need to make that are impossible without functioning public transit (or walkability).
Are you guessing or do you know? It might still be beneficial to use the tram when there is no or really little parking at your destination. Same as driving to the station to the train that takes you down town.
@@fluffigverbimmelt Well I've lived in Kyoto, where I didn't need a car. I've lived in London where I didn't need a car. I've lived in Metro Washington DC, where I absolutely couldn't live without a car: you can drive to and park at the Metro, but unless your journey is to Downtown DC, you still need a car when you reach your destination. Kyoto and London didn't have that problem because public transport connectivity is very good, and beyond that your actual destination is walkable.
Yes, it's not popular if we must engage in connecting multiple modes of transport. For long journeys though, many folk, especially people with disabilities, can't handle buses. I wonder of these 'false trams' without rails - can mimic the smooth ride of a railed vehicle - and we can then plug in our laptop and read etc. The argument for trains is quite clear for those who need toilets and other possible things - that can't be done with tyres on a road. Yes, have more trams - that we can walk to. Brisbane has stuffed up so many times since the day of the tram. We could go via tram into the middle suburbs - and then get a bus - because the tram lines were not extended - or some suburbs were too hilly. Buses take forever. I remember throwing up on a bus - the engine vibration was terrible. So, if buses are trying to imitate rail - I'd like to see if I can read - or will I still be feel like throwing up. I have medical conditions, and regularly check out what public transport is available. I wonder why buses have to imitate the terminology. When we're younger, well, and not concerned about bus movement etc. buses were fine - but not now. I wish to design railed transport infrastructure - but in Brisbane and south of the border - we find 'autonomous vehicles' are called public transport in the university civil engineering pages.
You are literally describing my city Albuquerque at the very end! The city built this crappy rapid bus system called A.R.T. here because the previous mayor basically wanted some legacy to his time in office. But basically no one who wasn’t a elected official wanted this system! It also was also built on one of the most historic and busiest roads here in the city which is Central (which is the old Route 66). After a month it opened, some of the buses had defects from the manufacturing and they put the system on hold. A year and half later the buses have been sent back to the manufacturer and we have these nice looking bus stations and also this bus only lane on the busiest street in town that are both unused. I really wish they gone with light rail here and not with some “special” bus system! I’m hoping they can still turn things around but I don’t know.
That's just bad luck. A fleet vehicle procurement can go wrong in any mode. Just ask SEPTA about Silverliner III's (I think). If your city already had street running buses before the BRT (which logically I'd think they did) they can run on the BRT. So the vehicle problems is not an issue with BRT. Same thing could happen to a light rail vehicle fleet purchase. Then you're really stuck as they are the only vehicles that can run on the system.
I'm from Bogota, and I came to this video thinking "oh, what other cities use BRT systems?" and then you just showed images of Bogota anyways lol! Anyways, good video. Bogota's main public transport system is a pretty complex BRT network that covers a lot of the city. People have a love/hate relationship with it, but overall I'd say it's okay. It's just not enough to meet the demand of a 10 million inhabitants city. I don't hate our BRT system, but I do think we need higher efficiency, faster and longer distance alternatives in trains, for sure.
@@wongjowo9152 Lol we have more in common than I thought. Currently both a LRT for neighboring satellite towns and a MRT for downtown Bogotá are under development because the BRT system was insufficient.
@@Corredor1230 indeed. But Jakarta's BRT will going to stick for probably the next century, considering the difficulties that MRT and LRT in Jakarta had to be built either underground or elevated, unlike typical road-level light rail in Europe. Jakarta is a car & motorbike centric mobility, and on many occasion, many drivers violates the BRT-only lane. Building light rail on the existing Jakarta's BRT-only lane is a recipe for disaster.
Jajaja, sí. Aquí en Colombia tenemos varias ciudades con BRT😅 Sabía que iba a mostrar al TransMilenio. Que yo sepa los sistemas BRT se han expandido bastante en Iberoamérica y es curioso saber que hasta en un país tan lejano como Indonesia se haya implementado
you quiero que pongan tranvía en el corredor verde de la séptima por eso estoy viendo este video jajaj, yo se que no es el mas eficiente por temas de costos y capacidad pero seria el mas estético y dejaria mas espacio para que hallan mas carros
Side note: when my son was a preschooler he knew a bike with two seats was called a tandem bike. So when he saw a "bendy bus" for the first time, he called it a tandem bus.
When my city (Aalborg, Denmark) chose BRT instead of Light Rail (Probably due to financial reasons), I was devistated - mostly because it’s more of a political move, rather than a urban-planning practical move (BTW it’s called PlusBus, if you think I’m joking)
Five bus routes in my city were going to be "upgraded" to BRT, until a university study was done that found the benefits of those routes could be surpassed by just expanding our light rail system to reach deep into Amherst--like it originally should've.
Sounds like a weird decision, if you consider that European cities even started to expand their Tram lines again, since well, it turns out even they are way better than Busses
Nice, yah I was going to include trolley buses and electric buses in this episode, but I'm saving them for a future episode entirely focused on bus systems.
I was actually watching this vid while riding the Moscow central circle. Not strictly light rail, but that's like my favourite public transport here in Moscow(well, after our trams ofc, 6th route has a place deep in my heart) and is immensely useful in getting around the city, connecting dozens of railway and metro stations with living / working districts and colleges. And i should add, the least favourite public transport are our buses with a close runner-up of elecrobuses, mainly because I want my trolleys back(
@@Chebka_ внешка (личное, но троллейбусы приятнее имхо) Эффективность Удобство (личное) Экологичность Банальная ностальгия Ну и банально то что троллейбусы не были средством попила бабла
@@Chebka_ потому что по тролейбусам можно было сверять время ночью, они очень асмрно тренькали под окнами, их легко было узнать по рогам, (и по цвету), служили путеводной нитью по малоизвестным районам, и главное люди жили с рогатиками под окнами большую часть своей жизни, лет 60 они были а теперь нет.
You forget one important thing, Light rails can accommodate a much larger amount of people(because they are bigger) , while BRT systems (while larger than regular buses) cannot carry nearly as much as a light rail. ^_^
you forgot one important thing. Ridership has been in decline for years. And BRT doesn't require 5 years of construction to lay rail. Nor does it require the destruction of every tree at street level along the route. Buses. We want buses. Lots and lots of buses.
It should be added that new train-tram systems greatly extend the advantages of trams and light trains by facilitating their entry into railway networks.
Here in Rio de Janeiro we recently had experiences with both BRT and light rail, and every _carioca_ will tell you light rail is working much, much better. The reasons for this superiority, though, have less to do with the modals themselves and more with the way they were conceived and the way they are operated. The BRT lines are operated by the same corrupt and inefficient bus companies that have dominated city transit (and transit policy) for decades. They are really bad at what they do, any company that sucked so much would quickly go out of business, but they continue to exist and profit from a decrepit system because, well, you know why. The bus system already sucked in the past. Now, instead of sucking on the right, shared, asphalt lane in simple buses and bus stops, it sucks on the central, exclusive, concrete lane in articulated buses and fancy stations. It goes a little faster but the overall experience is probably worse than before the BRT lines were built. It's unclear to most people who actually controls the BRT system - the City Hall or the bus companies consortium. City Hall built the tracks and stations, but buses and depots are owned, and drivers employed, by the companies. So when there's a problem it's easy to say it's the other part's fault. If a bus breaks down, the company will say it's because the track is poorly maintained by City Hall, City Hall will say it's because the bus is poorly maintained by the company. The light rail system, on the other hand, is operated by a professional, decent company. For the length of the contract (25 years), they own and are responsible for the whole system - tracks, rolling stock, depot, stations and personnel -, and not only it's maintenance, but also the construction itself, funded by federal-subsidized loans. Construction happens at a decent pace and reasonable cost, poor maintenance is so far unheard of, and efficiency and passenger satisfaction are top priorities. Interestingly, in 2½ years of operation, light rail trains have never hit a single vehicle, even though it crosses the busiest avenues of Downtown Rio. Trains were seriously hit, though, twice... by buses. I believe it's possible for a city to have an excellent BRT system. The problem is that, in many cities, this modal tends to attract the same players who have ruined the transit system in the first place - the old, corrupt bus companies. A "new" modal will naturally attract modern and better operators, politicians, and policies. It just happens that, currently, "old" is the bus and "new" is light rail. If we lived in a city long run and ruined by bad light rail operators, we would be happily welcoming BRT as the "solution". And actually that's what happened here. Until the 1960s, Rio had an extensive tram network that dated back to the 1850s. But then the trams started to look too slow, too clumsy and too inefficient compared to modern buses of the time, so the entire system was dismantled and rail tracks were quickly covered by asphalt. Buses seemed like a relief to the transit system back then. Earlier this year, when construction began on a new light rail line to replace the now inefficient buses, the old tracks were uncovered just centimeters below the surface. Then they were finally removed and replaced by the new tracks. Maybe in a few decades, if we don't take good care, it will be all asphalt again?
Man, vou te responder em português. Eu apoio um novo modelo de operação de BRT's e corredores de ônibus com consórcios que se responsabilizem desde a construção até a operação. Sim, é uma PPP. A CCR que é a controladora do VLT Carioca também gerencia a Via Quatro (Linha 4 Amarela do Metrô Paulistano) e também é só elogios. Quando fica essa história de poder público cuida da infraestrutura e empresas cuidam da operação, fica essa merda aí, onde um joga a culpa para o outro e nada acontece feijoada. Ou como sempre acontece: Só cobram melhorias da prefeito e este diz que mandou fiscalizar e nada muda. A CCR tem ações na Bolsa, ela depende de resultados financeiros e principalmente da sua imagem (que também foi arranhada por casos de corrupção), mas a maior parte das empresas de ônibus não, então tanto faz se eles cumprem os horários de partida ou não, se os "clientes" estão insatisfeitos. O BRT Carioca pode melhorar sim
Here in Denver Colorado LR is blasting cars left and right. How about two years of flaggers having to stand watch at crossings because the automatic gates sometimes don't work. 11 billion spent and in 20 years only 1/3 of the system is completed. What is it, a similar size city, Bogota Colombia, got their BRT system planned and completed in less than ten years. They only transport 2.4 million a day at about a 1/3 faster than road transport. Yes it has to be well designed and have good equipment. The main thing is that BRT can be up and running while light rail is still tying its shoes. So what's better, something or nothing..
Cara, o problema real do brt do RJ é a falta de integração e expansão do sistema. Pois o RJ é uma cidade bem populosa pra um sistema tão grande e sem integração!!!! Se as pessoas que pegam diariamente o sistema tivessem baldeações simples com o metrô e o trem,o RJ teria um dos sistemas mais eficientes do país.
Desafortunadamente no sé portugués, pero es un idioma importante por ustedes en Brasil, espero aprenderlo un día. Me identifique con los BRT, ya que en la Ciudad de México es la misma situación, los autobuses son operados por privados pero el sistema es del gobierno local. No hemos tenido más experiencias desde que el tranvia se extinguió en la década de los ochenta del siglo pasado, se intentó rehacer una línea nueva, pero se convirtió en BRT (Metrobus línea 4). Aquí se le ha dado una preferencia total ya que es una solución mucho más barata, en comparación con el Metro. Aunque la actual administración ha cambiado a hacer teleféricos (Dos lineas en construcción y por ende sin resultados de efectividad).
Hello brother, thanks for the insight. Fellow Latin American here, we have the same situation where the BRT system is operated by the bus companies and it is worse than the light rail (which is government owned and operated). It makes me think how the general interest is secondary to the profit of these companies.
These are all true, and in fact more points could be added for light rail. However, the low initial cost and flexibility of BRT can be be more helpful to get it passed in cities with limited budgets and space constrains (especially in developing countries). Because BRTs can use existing road lanes. Also, BRTs could be used as a pilot, until the city get finances and space ready for a light rail system.
I think brt can still be useful in some situations. Building an entire rail system takes time. And meanwhile traffic keeps getting worse. But you already have a normal bus routes in the city, just give them a dedicated bus route. No need to build a new road, just paint the existing ones and use the same old buses. Until ofcourse, you have a better alternative in the same route, Then you can turn it back to normal road, suddenly there's an extra lane for traffic, so it all gets better...
"increased property value" People who can afford the properties: "why go rail when I have my own car and go anywhere?" Meanwhile, the people who'd be using the rail service because they can't afford their own vehicle, also can't afford to get a property - purchase OR rent.
I understand what you mean but in the UK, The DLR and Manchester Metrolink paid it's way through property values. They make it much easier for employees to get to work. To advocates of BRT I ask this question. Would Canary Wharf in London UK or Salford Quays in Manchester UK benefit the same if it used BRT? I personally doubt it!
The more transit is available the weaker this effect. Suburbs with rail connections in the relatively transit-poor Leeds, UK for instance are typically significantly more expensive than suburbs without - while in Newcastle upon Tyne or Liverpool where there are extensive metro systems the connected areas are more mixed, including many low-income areas.
As a Winnipeger, I can confirm that bus transport and by extension, potholes, in our city is a meme. There's a reason why people say "Winnipeg has only two seasons: winter, and construction".
I think a lot of cities have that nomer, hell I hear it a lot from Montrealer with orange cones surrounding the city and seem to not be taken away at all
@@leonpaelinck I can't relate to ðe idea of downscales. Ðey aren't common where I live, or not ðat I know of, and I þink it'd be hard to pull off. Could you please explain why ðey happen in oðer places, please?
Just a few misconceptions here: overall maintenance doesn't only refer to the sets but also infrastructure. A light rail/tram also has special infrastructure to maintain, tracks, powerlines, signals, stations, powersupply stations, etc. A bus route (aka not the special and stupid concrete one in the middle of nowhere) uses already existing roads meaning the maintenance only encompasses the vehicles and perhaps the stops and passenger info displays. So overall a lightrail will always be more expansive regardless even if more efficient. Electric motors aren't the only parts that can fail, wheel trucks also can fail, as well as carriage links, power feeding, etc. Air conditionning and air filters also require la lot or maintenance and now they are the same on busses. The choice will foremost depend on the number of passengers to move and the area where the line is. Having one lane on a super highway turned into a BRT system is very efficient, the road is already there with good speed caracteristics and you don't pay to the most of it, only for the stops and access to it and the vehicles. They have that in Brazil and it works fine. And the road remains usable in case of emergency for other uses. Turning it into a special right of way/system can be detrimental to such cases. However, when you have more passengers to deal with and that the bus would prove ineffective because so expansive to install that the futher expanse to install a tram/lightrail is negligeable and brings more than the initial costs, more expansion of capacity and more efficiency per passenger and more pax per hour and way. When light rail becomes overrun by passengers and can't expand the traffic, another alternative is needed: metro system whether overhead of underground. You criticize some decision making chosing BRTs instead of light rail. The same goes for light rail vs metro sometimes. Some transport authorities or cities prefer lightrail because it is more visible politically speaking and much less expansive than a metro but its overtime expansion capacity is quite limited on already very busy roads where the metro doesn't have that constraint at all. The US, still attached to their cars tend to prefer BRTs and Light Rails instead of real metro systems, even LA system is a underground lightrail which seems a waste of ressource for so small trains... That being said, there is the growing concept of a Pre-metro. An underground in the center, on the street or ground level tracks in the subburbs light rail that can evolve into a fully grown metro if needed. Some small/medium cities in Europe tend to like that concept a lot.
Didn't expect the voice of reason here) I'll make an example from something familiar to me, namely Israel. Haifa, started it's BRT project in 2006. Finished in 2013, 7 years in the making, completing three lines that serve all of the city and suburbs. Overall cost was 1.5 billion shekels. BRT runs on it's own lane in most of the places although sometimes it has to borrow one from the general roads. The ride is still much faster then the regular buses. Tel Aviv, on the other hand... Construction started in 2009, as of now only one line is finished but still not functioning, planned to open in 2022. Two other lines are still being built, planned to open only in 2026. The cost for red line alone is estimated to be 14 billion. The point is not that Haifa municipality has made better decisions than TLV. The point is these are two different situations that needed different approaches. TLV has much bigger problem with traffic jams than Haifa, urban density is greater so part of the line is constructed underground, making it also quasi-metro. Haifa's BRT system also needs to serve less of a population than Tel Aviv. Finally, Haifa is situated on the hilly terrain which makes any construction much more difficult and building rail a veritable nightmare. One is not a watered down version of the other. These are different systems, serving different cities.
Roads wear out all the time and need to be patched, especially when heavy trucks and busses use them. They need to be plowed when it snows and they develop cracks due to freezing water and salt. Rail systems are much, much tougher. Tunnels for roads need to be much wider and smoothly finished (in case a bus scrapes it). Tunnels for rail systems can be roughly finished and much narrower (trains stay on the tracks while busses need space to allow some wandering).
@@factChecker01 everywhere in the developed world, there are efficient and relatively inexpensive system to maintain asphalt roads. The large scale of these systems makes them so inexpensive. I don't think that there is any part of the US where it will be more cost effective to maintain light rail
@@tooleyheadbang4239 I never liked light rail especially if it shares the same road lanes as cars. Then it is the slowest type of public transportation. It is bumpy and rough because expensive to maintain and squeaks. Maybe if rich place maintains it perfectly then it is barely more comfortable than a bus but still less functional due to its limited route options.
The question is that BRT when done right is a light rail with busses. If done wrong (and it often does), you've repainted the normal bus a different color. When Light Rail is done right, it provides the same advantages as a medium-sized subway system at a fraction of the cost. If done wrong, you get a standard tramway (wich, however, is still superior to BRT).
If you already have lots of roadways with far too many lanes and already have a fleet of electric trolleybuses, though, BRT can make a lot of sense. It's a road diet that benefits transit riders significantly and doesn't have the higher capital costs of light rail (due to track installation). It also doesn't need quite the same ridership as a well-designed light rail system to succeed.
@@AmbientMorality if you want to build a brt system with electric trolleybuses. You have to ban big trucks from the road cause the overhead wires of the trolley bus are not that high. Also trolley busses are a lot slower than light rail and slower then brt with diesel caused of the low max speed they have. So it would be lame to build a dedicated trolley bus lane for the to go slow or have their wires snap of. If they are battery electric then it is just a lot more expensive and the light rail is better. A trolley bus system to be able to get speed needs a very careful and precise placement of the overhead wires and no bumbs on the road surface. Still I would like them more than diesel buses
@@PanosSkarp Some good points. I don't think the speed limitation makes sense though; buses on surface streets and light rails trains rarely go above 40mph, which is what a trolleybus can do. Furthermore, trolleybuses have significantly better performance on steep grades - which makes sense for hilly cities like Seattle and San Francisco.
@@AmbientMorality hmmmm sustainable 40? Only if the wires above are correctly installed. When talking about hills trolley bus is king. In my city athens we have a big and old trolley bus network urban network that is very slow sometimes due to very old bent wires. Some lines never go 40. And those that do rarely do. Sometimes the problem is that big that out from nowhere you see a big flash. Once even the driver got scared that it would be damaged by this. Thankfully it wasn't. But that makes drivers hesitant to speed up to road standards. It is in need of upgrade since most lines are completely the same from the 50's. The only problem is the internal capacity even the double articulated ones are not wide enough. When crowded its so hard to get out you might miss your stop. That's the only big negative compared to a tram or light rail system
@@PanosSkarp Ah. I'm in Seattle, and though falling off the wires still happens, it's almost always on weird spots like a sharp turn from a flat street to a hill. They do a decent amount of maintenance to keep the wires working, but I believe it's still cheaper than a full light rail installation. There's occasional sparks but I've never seen anything like a giant flash! Sounds like Athens needs to keep its infrastructure up to date. Buses could and should have similar capacity to light rail (they're the same width), but a lot of transit providers tend to install tons of seats. If they let more people stand they could fit as much as an average light rail.
