To me, they did the best they could do with Van Ness.. Unless you're going all-out with tunneling or a skyway, BRT is very limited in regards to interurban travel. $300+ Million is a stretch for this project though
Light rail, which SF already has all the infrastructure for, would have been actually cheaper than a BRT line here. They ended up spending 80-85% of the cost of a light rail line for a transit mode that is 3x more expensive to run per passenger. This is completely ridiculous. The last thing a place like SF should build with its completely bonkers labor costs is another bus line! Muni must have forgotten how to do basic arithmetic.
BRT in general is a waste of money for cities with high labor costs. BRT is supposed to be "light rail on rubber tires". But this concept only works if you have cheap labor. If a BRT lines gets the high ridership that would justify it then you need to add more busses with more drivers. That nukes any cost savings over building light rail. With light rail you just add another car and you've doubled your capacity. There's a reason why BRT was invented and is mostly built in South American cities with insanely low labor costs. BRT is literally more expensive than light rail in pretty much any US metro that has the ridership to justify a BRT line in the first place.
@@californiamade5608 Nope. It doesn't have level boarding, fare gates, proper shelters, a completely isolated right of way or any other necessary elements for BRT. This is an express bus lane with some boarding islands. That's not BRT. The international BRT association does not consider the Van Ness line actual BRT. It does not comply with any tier of BRT service. It's just an express bus lane that cost 80% of the cost of light rail and that is is almost 3x more expensive to run per passenger.
I cannot overstate how silly this project is. BRT is a waste of money in cities with high labor costs. BRT is supposed to be "light rail on rubber tires". But this concept only works if you have cheap labor. If a BRT lines gets the high ridership that would justify it then you need to add more busses with more drivers. That nukes any cost savings over building light rail. With light rail you just add another car and you've doubled your capacity. There's a reason why BRT was invented and is mostly built in South American cities with insanely low labor costs. BRT is literally more expensive than light rail in pretty much any US metro that has the ridership to justify a BRT line in the first place.
To me, they did the best they could do with Van Ness.. Unless you're going all-out with tunneling or a skyway, BRT is very limited in regards to interurban travel.
$300+ Million is a stretch for this project though
Light rail, which SF already has all the infrastructure for, would have been actually cheaper than a BRT line here. They ended up spending 80-85% of the cost of a light rail line for a transit mode that is 3x more expensive to run per passenger. This is completely ridiculous.
The last thing a place like SF should build with its completely bonkers labor costs is another bus line! Muni must have forgotten how to do basic arithmetic.
thank you for this video!
You're welcome!
Way OT: Boston just got ride of the trolley bus system. I am wondering if this will be that last new trolley bus line ever built in North America
quite possible....i hear SFMTA is planning on removing all trollybusses and replacing with E-bus 🤦♂
@@chromebomb From where did you hear this
Vancouver has plans to expand their network a bit. Seattle expands regularly.
I mean, Dayton, Ohio still exists.
@@chromebomb then explain why there are 6 year old NEW XT60S still running
been waiting for this
well that was fast
I either take one day or eight months to upload a video and there's no in between
@@BayAreaTransitNews this is why i edit all my videos and then sent them out one week at a time
@@SeligsTrainsandTravels Smart man, I do this too but not for videos about current events (like grand openings etc), those get uploaded asap
@@BayAreaTransitNews lol yeah i just send em out when i send em out
@@SeligsTrainsandTravels Lmao we love the chaos
The travel time is faster, but the BRT looks... odd. AC Transit's Tempo is much better, and was built in a much shorter time, I think.
BRT in general is a waste of money for cities with high labor costs. BRT is supposed to be "light rail on rubber tires". But this concept only works if you have cheap labor. If a BRT lines gets the high ridership that would justify it then you need to add more busses with more drivers. That nukes any cost savings over building light rail. With light rail you just add another car and you've doubled your capacity.
There's a reason why BRT was invented and is mostly built in South American cities with insanely low labor costs. BRT is literally more expensive than light rail in pretty much any US metro that has the ridership to justify a BRT line in the first place.
Yeah, not real BRT. And why are there no stop announcements?
There are, but they're super quiet.
Oh it’s a real BRT.
@@californiamade5608 Nope. It doesn't have level boarding, fare gates, proper shelters, a completely isolated right of way or any other necessary elements for BRT. This is an express bus lane with some boarding islands. That's not BRT. The international BRT association does not consider the Van Ness line actual BRT. It does not comply with any tier of BRT service. It's just an express bus lane that cost 80% of the cost of light rail and that is is almost 3x more expensive to run per passenger.
I cannot overstate how silly this project is. BRT is a waste of money in cities with high labor costs. BRT is supposed to be "light rail on rubber tires". But this concept only works if you have cheap labor. If a BRT lines gets the high ridership that would justify it then you need to add more busses with more drivers. That nukes any cost savings over building light rail. With light rail you just add another car and you've doubled your capacity.
There's a reason why BRT was invented and is mostly built in South American cities with insanely low labor costs. BRT is literally more expensive than light rail in pretty much any US metro that has the ridership to justify a BRT line in the first place.