Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="John WR"] Buses that run on existing roadways are buses, Sam.  Yes you can give them electronic gadgets to keep green lights green and put the stops further apart to achieve some time savings but you are still running buses.  And clearly, to buy a bunch of buses and put them on existing roads is a lot cheaper than building a new rapid transit system.   To build a true BRT system we would have to give the buses dedicated roadways.  If we do that the cost of land will be the same as the cost of land would be for rail transit; there would be no savings.   The issue is do we simply want to put more buses on our roads or do we want to build a rapid transit system for either buses or rail vehicles.  Rapid transit will carry many more people and current information suggests it will attract more customers.  Buses on roads will be a lot cheaper.  Both systems have pluses and minuses.   As you point out, to the extent that US cities were built without public transit in the first place to go back now and put transit in them is going to be expensive.  We have built our sprawl and now we are living with the consequences.  We are also an aging population.  What happens to people who want to live in their homes and are healthy but can no longer drive.  Do we tell them that providing them with transportation they can use is just to expensive?  [/quote] We tell them to use on-demand van services in most parts of the country.  If they cannot drive, they probability are mobility impaired, which means that they would not be able to get to a light or commuter rail station.  This is the case in Texas, as well as most other areas of the country.  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Statistics, in 2009 (latest verified numbers), 5.0 per cent of Americans used public transport to get to work.  Most of them drove or found an alternative.  The percentage using public transport has not changed appreciably since 1989. This is true in Dallas and Austin; the two communities that I am most familiar with. Moreover, use of public transit in Dallas has flatlined at approximately 3 to 5 per cent.  There is not a BRT system in the United States that runs on dedicated rights-of-way. Adelaide and Sydney Australia have systems that run on partially dedicated rights of way.  Both systems use former railway or tram rights-of-way. One of the factors governing the decision as to what type of transit to build is cost and affordability.  What is missing from most of the discussions on these forums is any recognition that the United States and its political sub-divisions are in deep debt.   According to the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, the combined federal, state, and local government debt is approximately $19.7 trillion.  Moreover, an intermediate scenario estimate of the unfunded liabilities of the United States, including unfunded state pensions, stands at $46 trillion.  Moreover, Americans are carrying personal debt, which includes mortgages, revolving consumer, and non-revolving consumer debt, plus student loan debt, of more than $13.6 trillion as per the Federal Reserve. Before one knocks RBT, which may be a more cost effective solution in many areas of the country, they should tell us how the ideal rail transit systems will be paid for?  Where will the money come from?  This is the question that the proponents of a light rail system for Austin keep sidestepping.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag