Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="daveklepper"] Dedicated bus lanes and bus rapid transit work well where there is already a substantial user base for public transportaton, and the greatly improved bus service can be expected to add 15-25% ridership, taking some cars off roads and reducing traffic congestion, with the additional reduction from removing the buses themselves. But rail is the only widely proven transit that can swing a substantial number of private auto commuters to use public transportation, where a ridership base can be built from essentially nothing.   There have been experiments with bus rapid transit attempting to do this job, but they have not been really successful. Once the investment is made, because of labor and maintenance costs and vehicle repalcement costs, even including right of way, the operating cost per passenger mile is about 50-60% that of bus transportation. [/quote] I don't believe that the lower operating costs (arguable) for a $47 million per mile light rail line in Austin, Texas would offset the higher operating costs (arguable) and more frequent equipment replacement costs of a rapid technology bus line (<$1 million per mile).   How did you arrive at your numbers? According to one report that I read, the DOT is pushing communities contemplating light rail, as well as commuter rail, to consider alternatives, including rapid bus technology.  Their thrust is based on a concern about the cost of building and operating rail lines, especially in medium size communities. Buses have a distinct advantage over rail systems.  If the population shifts, as it has in most Texas cities, the buses can easily follow the population changes.  But once a rail line has been tacked down, because of the large capital investment, it is very difficult to move it. Rail is a good solution for Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. because most suburban development occurred along the existing rail lines that emanated from those cities.  But in Texas, where I live, as well as most other places in the country, especially the southeast and the southwest, suburban growth developed helter-skelter.  It took place in many instances off Interstate Highways or along roads built specifically for the developments.  Accordingly, we don't have the population concentrations in most areas that make rail the best solution.  The car, augmented by buses, is the best solution in most cities in the southeast and southwest.   The Leander to Austin commuter rail service, which I ride several days a week, rolls through large areas where there are few people, although there are heaps of cattle.  Whether these areas will fill in with potential riders remains to be seen.  Given the cost of the rail line (operating and capital), I think one plausible scenario is that the service will be abandoned.  Of course, it is far too early to tell, but it has placed a crunch on Capital Metro's finances, and abandonment could be one way out of the conundrum.  The manager under whom the project was developed has retired (some say that he was forced out).  Neither of the two candidates vying to replace him have had any extensive commuter or light rail experience.
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