Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy
Thank you for the positive feedback.
Not only can express buses use the Transitway but also so could potential commuter buses from outer areas such as Okotoks. Commuter buses can have specific points where they get on the Transitway from, for example, the Deerfoot. Commuter buses can use the route but wouldn't never slow it down as some busways have buses every 20 seconds. They can merge onto the Transitway at any station whether from Okotoks or Langdon.
The true spur lines can be total busway so heavier use along most of the route and the route can be split bringing more rapid transit to more people at a fraction of the cost of an LRT. Also BRT buses that are used in massive systems around the world are no the same old buses they use to be. Most larger system use bi-articulated buses. A new one that is now being used in Dresden has capacity of 250 people per bus due to it's 30 meter length but is totally low floor, has extra wide LRT type doors, and yet doesn't sway like many articulates due to a unique axcel. Check it out at www.autotram.info/en.html
If the City has a few extra billion lying around then great but they don't and the last thing the city should do is do it's transit planning by a politician who's only concern is the ribbon cutting ceremony. |
I don't want to argue that it doesn't offer more flexibility or that it can't (hypothetically) facilitate the operational aspects that you are stating here, but I would like to remind that it is (a) hypothetical and (b), ideal.
Part of the reason that rail-based transit may be more optimal is exactly because it doesn't share its running way with other routes/modes. How do you propose, in a system that has any laudable frequency, all these spurs interact with the trunk line? Should the less frequent lines be forced to wait for the trunk? Should they also stop at the intermediate station? Can they skip stop / pass one another? If they can, do we actually need to supply a running way that has two lanes per direction - like any true BRT system that is purported to have similar capacity to LRT? Are we ok with higher operating costs per passenger? Given also that the supposed benefit is that other jurisdictions can run their buses once at the running way, this would also require that every other agency/commision operate very similar buses (platform heights, berthing capability, and so on) and that they are compatible with whatever transit signal priority measures are in place - a rather ideal proposition.
I know the forum tends to adhere to the message of about exactly one, let's say, celebrity transit planner, and although his general message is pretty accurate, I don' t believe that it accounts for every aspect of operating a transit system - once you have a generally non-US system as a foundation; where transit actually plays a significant role, it gets a little more complicated than some debate on technology and up front capital costs. This in the same vein that stating the LRT system here is the most successful in North America, thus, implicitly disregarding the cross-subsidization of the feeder bus network and that entire interaction.
More succinctly stated - that claim requires a look at the overall transit system performance (and even entire transportation system), which isn't anything to write home about. I've posted these numbers on here before.
Is "BRT" and the mode progression concept better? Maybe, maybe not. I'd tend to the latter, because it's being promoted under the guise of understanding how that is actually supposed to play out, when in actuality, they don't have a clue. The former has more certainty attached to it, and thereby has more political and technical will behind it, to ensure that the desired outcomes are advanced. I.e, once you've sunk those larger costs, you'll be more willing to ensure other development aspects support the project, as opposed to chalking it up as an unsuccessful, but relatively inconsequential experiment.
And that being said, it really is time to remember that rail has some advantages that even bi-articulated buses - as cool as they are - can not match. Some like to call this a rail bias, which misses the point that frequency and speed are not the only factors which determine mode choice. Nor does it account for positive benefits to the transit operators or the city as a whole, such as lower operating costs (especially per passenger), less energy intensive and generally lower noise emissions, etc.
BRT is great - it just should be promoted with a bit more caution. I believe this should go for ITDP, GTZ, SUTP and company, who extoll BRT to essentially no end, disregarding context and longer term planning objectives.
Prev
Linear Mode
