Why Light Rail is better than Bus Rapid Transit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- I hope you enjoyed the meme at the end, that took way to long to make.
The last episode of Armchair Urbanist can be found here: • The Armchair Urbanist
And here's the stand-alone meme vid: • Lots and Lots of Train...
Forgotten Video credits, check out these channels too!
/ @mjoflakelandx
My Twitter where I also shitpost:
/ alanthefisher
My Discord:
/ discord
My Patreon:
/ alanthefisher - Комедії
The Audio over the ending meme had to be removed or else this video would be taken down.... Thanks UA-cam
Damn it!
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
No wonder why the video was gone for a while
Could you reupload the meme with the original music on the extras channel?
I have to ask if you were going for "rail religion" or "rail rage lion" 😝
"Trains are steel on steel"
Laughs in Paris Metro rubber-tyred trains
And Mexico City Metro which also has rubber tire wheel except for 2 of the lines
Also Santiago de Chile, line 5
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.
@@MarceloBenoit-trenes I like trains with metal wheels better.
@@MarceloBenoit-trenes The sapporo subway is mostly rubber with guiderail also
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.
This watering down process you described is what politicians like to call "flexibility"
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.
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
B b but your individual freedom to spend time in traffic jams.
What about my freedom to get t bonned by a drunk driver at 10 pm?
What about your freedom to decide which color of environment-destroyer you get to spend 30% of your paycheck on?
The Austin way is to just drive drunk.
God bless the Green Line.
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.
The algorithm helps. And it's an interesting subject with lots of content
Haha me too! I’ve actually started trying out different rail/bus lines in my area just because it’s been on my mind more.
Same bro, now i hate my city
3 months ago i didnt give a single fuck about urban design but now I'm so obsessed😭😭😭
@@propoop6991 Me too 😆
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.
Rail is ugly for me. Transport with wheels like buses is an improvement.
@@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 LMFAOOO
@@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.
was NOT expecting neon genesis theme
but so worth it!
Get in the light rail shinji!
(Not)
@@egret4393 moves in teenage depression and ennui.
A TRUE "Watch this video till the end" moment
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.
I'm from Winnipeg 😭😭😭😭
And the fact that Winnipeg used to have streetcars makes my brain steam
But no, we just had to turn in to a completely car city just like the rest of North America.
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.
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.
@@penguinsfan251 What the hell are you even talking about?
@@penguinsfan251 triggered
@@penguinsfan251 cry harder
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.
Zagreb 's metre guage trams are excellent. Smooth riding, frequent.
Zagreb on my list of most underrated cities. So lovely! So livable!
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.
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!
BRT IS STILL BETTER ! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬👎👎👎👎👎👎
BRT IS STILL BETTER NERD
@@Dwevin better at sucking
bottom text
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
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
Roachaximus ikr
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.
@@utterbullspit Its true, now that the car ruled infrastructure is in place, and bike trails stand on former rail right of way, its impossible
Yeah I wish the trolley lines were expanded.
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
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
BRT: Yeah but the local government doesn't want to pay extra money to flatten the land so I win.
Yeah but same governments do pay extra
Local governments aren't paying for it - they're taxing you and you're paying for it!
@@oliversissonphone6143 Well I want a light rail in my city so why wouldn't I invest in it?
e?
@@oliversissonphone6143 transit would be way better than more to MIC or foreign aid to genocide lovers like Israel
(4:33)
'Get on the train, Shinji!!'
Oh crap you beat me to it!
what
@@maknyc1539 evangelion reference
It all returns to BRTs
I think the main benefit of BRTs is that you can more easily have temporary solutions when a city expands
But also easy downscales
@@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?
When you referenced Winnipeg I got excited because nothing ever happens hear to warrant someone talking about us
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, exactly. It's not a contest; these are just 2 different tools in the tool chest, with different applications
Even with a car I still prefer to take the lrt from the suburbs into downtown due to lack of parking and heavy traffic + general road anxiety
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.
If they did not have money for a good BRT where would they get the money for a 10 x costing light rail?
"You are literally describing my city Albuquerque at the very end!"
この 空 を 抱いて 輝く
少年 よ 神話 に なれ
天使と戦い、頑張ってください！
Or, perhaps, trolleybuses.
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.
@@MarceloBenoit-trenes like trackless trolleys, right? You can make trains out of them if you provide the proper equipment
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(
Поч люди так скучают по троллейбусам?
@@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.
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.
Wanted to write a comment like this after the video. Light rail is a lot sexier, but buses are so much more practical.
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.
One word
RAILGELION
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
"Railgelion"
Me: It is beautiful
Next he needs to make some play on the Railgun theme...
Get in the train shinji
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...
Train is good if the cities have big budget to build it but if you dont have budget brt is the solution.
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.
def
Wait... there are buses with their own right of way?
*cries in New Jersey Transit*
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. ^_^
BRT is for small cities and the burbs
Definitely
Yeah but not that much of a different in term of carrying capacity per hour
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.
@@jimgraham1685 BRT sucks..
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.
same as jakarta, the brt is too overloaded so the government starting to develop MRT and LRT
@@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
I love how it says 'is the only vehicle that can use his tracks' but then says ' shares track with his bigger commuter train bros'.
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.
@@smilingearth5181 And politicos actually LISTENED TO REASON? AMAZING!
@@Blazo_Djurovic Ha, I wish. They just combined two routes and split up four to "alleviate pressure on the metro".
Most urban planners recommend BRT - it's the politicians that want light rail
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
Being on the Minneapolis - St. Paul Light Rail serval times I can confirm that it is the chad way to get around
Mall of America gang
Only light rail in America that runs 24/7
It really is, though our BRT isn’t bad either, probably influenced in part by it all being considered one metro system.
Transmilenio footage makes me simultaneously proud of being from Bogota and cringe at the sheer ineptitude of the damn thing
A cruel angels thesis with trains is one of the best things ive ever seen
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.
Check the Volgograd "metro". It isn't exactly new. But I agree it is a very good thing
Actually in my city (Medellín) all brt buses are natural gas and some are electric
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.
Yeah, but Medellin is famous in Colombia for his Metro and Tram network, every other mayor capital of our country has BRT and we hate it
The buses in Medellín are horrible. So much smoke billows out.
@@AustenSummers there is the trams which are rubber tired
@@rhodesianwojak2095 and those trams are a faillure, no advantage over trams or trolleybuses.
Being able to travel almost everywhere you need to go by rail is truly wonderful. I did it for 8 years, and I miss it.
And there's Boston, where we spent 90 percent of the cost of building light rail on the Silver Line --including huge tunnels, underground stations and electrification for the SL3 route -- and then put in buses to "save money", which were actually more expensive because they're dual mode.
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
@@user-we3no5pw9n 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
@@user-we3no5pw9n 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.
As a Minnesotan, I personally thank you for using a Metro Transit LRT in the thumbnail :D
Hear hear!
This is the 4th reason for clicking he missed at the beginning
twin cities gang!!!!!
@@aprilshowers3008 twin cities gang!!!!!
Only light rail in the US that runs 24/7 :)
My Hometown in Germany got rid of it's existing Light Rail Infrastructure in exchange for a BRT System in the late 70s when Busses were a Trend and oh man, what a terrible decission that was. I'm pretty much faster anywhere if I just take the bike because the Bus always get's stuck in a traffic Jam. Even more funny: If I just walk it usually takes me only about 20-30 longer to get where I want to be in comparison to when I take the bus.
It's just broken. Don't even get me started on the current state of regional trains after their privatization in the 90s.
Light rail can also get stuck in traffic. And buses can be spared traffic through dedicated lanes. Shouldn't depend on bus Vs Train
A bus can have a dedicated lane like light rail, avoiding traffic and the opposite it true also, a light rail can get stuck in traffic if it doesn't have its own dedicated lane. So this isn't an advantage/disadvantage of LR vs BRT
"Your from winipeg and the title induces an inner rage in you"
I would be mad if I lived in winipeg too
Am Winnipegger can confirm I am mad I live here.
@@cocmaster7167
I mean I just looked at google maps and it looks like my first starter city in city skylines, industrial next to houses
I Finished another "verses" video, Trolley Buses vs Battery Buses:
ua-cam.com/video/SB9EARKvCTc/v-deo.html
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.
*Versus
That ending got me top tier. Now you got a subscriber.
"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.
Your children can use the train, to go to school/parties/partner before they are old enough to drive.
Also rents depend on property values.
Something something Georgism
Because driving is a stressful thing to do, and I'd rather take a relaxing ride than drive in rush-hour traffic after a day's work.
As a Light Rail (Metro) driver I can assure you that while we don't actively pollute, the sound pollution can at times be pretty high, at least with our MX3K Siemens trains. The motors are pretty loud at higher speeds, turns cause flange grinding and noise, and of course passing over switches causes a racket. I honestly feel really bad for the people that live along parts of a line that cuts through suburbs.. I actually think buses could be more quiet, though I wonder about the lower frequency sound of the engine having a more adverse effect on people.
Excellent point. Our city bought new light rail vehicles from Breda that are so heavy they shake neighboring buildings. And they shriek on tight turns. Yuck.
True. But buses are never quiet, regardless of the technology used. Make heaps of noise whenever the driver is shifting into first or second gear. And given the insane amount of times a bus stops along any journey, ahem...
that's what noise cancelling headphones r for mate
@@64bitmodels66 Not wrong, but hard to wear 24/7 if it's extra bad
Well, in Medellin, Colombia. BRT has been very effective as the city sits on a valley, ans the areas that need most public transport are the ones that sit higher on the mountain, where a tram could not access. there also are delimited lanes for the BRT that people respect, BRT has been very useful, and while a trolleybus could actually make more sense, until they set the cables, which would be very difficult, This BRT diesel and electric buses are one of the best options of public transport in the city, and have been copied all around the country. It is called the Metroplus, and while the city has already built a tram line, and is building the second one. BRT has kept the city moving, it is so succesful, that a third line is being built right now.
Colombia loves brt doesnt it?
@@foxctocofxk8509 Some places its good, exept bogotá, that city built its BRT thinking about a metro that did not open. And now its pure shit
@@foxctocofxk8509 Also, the difference between Medellin and other cities, is that Medellin already had a good Metro system before the introduction of the BRT, which is just used as a feeder system
Reason 4 for watching this video; Memes
One thing is that at grade LRT is prone to collisions, and subsequent trains cannot detour around the accident.
people here crash into trains and buses all the time.
I see a lot of videos on collisions and the main problem is t the LRT, it’s that people apparently can’t look where they are going(and a lack of signals)
You mean that drivers are retarded and smash into at-grade LRT or cut onto the track. The solution is to remove cars. Okay, you've sold me.
@@jetstream6389 SkyTrain is a light metro which is a different class than the vast majority of light rail
OMG obsoletely!! Here in LA, the A Line (which is mostly at grade) has let to countless pedestrian fatalities. LRT NEEDS to be fully grade separated to get the full benefits.
I'd be very surprised if the main source of energy loss was rolling resistance and not air resistance, considering the latter scales exponentially with speed while the former does not. Light rail, and trains in general, are awesome because they only have one frontal area, so you can make them as long as you want without noticeably increasing air resistance, as long as the cars are packed close enough together. To increase bus capacity, you have to buy more buses, which each push against the air independently.
"4, You are from Ottawa, my sincerest condolences" should've been added.
I find it interesting that you omit the fact that a rail system takes much longer to build than it takes to purchase a fleet of busses and have them in effective operation. The time a rail system takes to be complete over a bus system increases exponentially the longer the route is.
The exponential time increase over length isn't true
@@GlatHjerne neither is yo mama
Now it really depends also by the construction methods and by what utility infrastructure is underground (water, gas, electricity) If you choose a rail similar with the train and you don't have much thing happening underground, with certain machines you can do really fast the business. The main problem is the political will. If you have good leadership that really wants to make it happen then it will bring together all the parties at the table (water, gas supplier etc) to schedule the project.
Fair point of course. That said, for guided buses you still have to construct the bus guided way, if you go for that option, although you don't need to have the guidance everywhere as a rail based system does.
I have no idea why anybody would want a quick fix that poses more problems in the long run rather than something which takes time but brings greater benefits.
"Light Rail is better than Bus Rapid Transit".
1). You don't have to ride on a bus.
2). You don't have to ride on a bus.
3). See 1)and 2) above...
But you have to ride on rails that is a drawback compared to bus.
@@ligametis I don't think so.
Travelling by bus is the last option.
...after not going at all!
@@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.
@@ligametis If you don't mind riding on buses, then the bus is ideal.
Personally, if I had no alternative, I'd simply not go!
@@tooleyheadbang4239 for me if only option is train, streetcar or tram I just don't go or take a car. What is the problem with buses?
4:44 epic trolling with the Class 142 there
Given the stipulation that both systems are using a dedicated right of way then yes Light rail completly trumps a Bus. But in situations where the lightrail is running on surface streets as a tram system it's much more debatable because a bus system can be implemented by just purchasing the vehicles and having several bus depots which will provide many many stops.
Option #3 could have included Ottawa.
Ottawa's experience with BRT and subsequent conversion to LRT shows another few issues.
One is that for any given level of ridership, BRT requires more grade separation than LRT due to the greater required number of transit vehicles. So where a cross street of an LRT system might see a train every 2 minutes (4 minutes per direction), with BRT it'll be closer to a dozen. It's one thing to stop cross street traffic once every 2 minutes for 15-20 seconds to let a train pass, quite another to be doing it thrice a minute or forcing buses to bunch up. So... more grade separations are needed with BRT.
Another is that the stations can end up being a lot bigger if multi-lane station designs are employed, as in Ottawa. Now that Ottawa is converting its Transitway, some of the new LRT stations scarcely fill the void left by the former BRT stations. One aspect you might not think of pertains to the surface of the busway: a number of Ottawa's station areas have had asphalt replaced with concrete pads due to the damage that stopped buses do to the asphalt. New bus stations and even a number of bus stops expected to have heavy use are now built from the outset with concrete pads in the stopping lane.
Third is right of way maintenance - buses do far more damage to paved surfaces, especially in winter climates, than do trains to rails. To prevent a cycle of buses damaging pavement and damaged pavement damaging buses, busways have to be resurfaced frequently.
Whenever people say brt are low on capacity, i think they underestimate by not looking to the efficient ones. For example, İstanbul's brt system (called Metrobüs) average speed is 40kmh+ and service is available 7/24 spans 40+ kilometers. 2-3 vehicles are available every minute if not more. Carries 1+ million each day.
@@bahadronurguduru3607 Ya, Ottawa had 3 vehicles every minute. It caused massive bus jams of up to 3 km in length. Your basic problem is that the constraint in the system is not how many buses can theoretically move along a lane in that period but rather passenger movements on and off the buses. When you have station dwell times of 20, 30, 40 seconds you're exceeding the average bus headway of 20 seconds (3/min). Queuing is inevitable at that point.
www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c89792427d75d45d&q=ottawa+bus+jam
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.
Over head cables keep falling down every time there is a strong breeze and the trains are cancelled for weeks till the over head cables can be repaired.
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.
You left out the fourth reason I clicked. I’m from Minneapolis and the sight of our Chad Lightrail
in lisbon there are some yellow trams they are beautifull, but crazy. when I moved to lisbon and I realized how "fast and furious" they can be, I developed a secret fear on beeing murdered by one.
So I just looked it up, and the intended speed is 70km/h!!?? For a tram!?
@@insert_username_here I don't know,
but it must be. the rams are faster than our trains. ahahahhah.
as Lisbon is a city of hills, I think the rails could be lifted a little at the end of the descents and Carris (the tram's operator) becomes an airline.
I used to live in Connecticut where they tore down perfectly good train tracks to build a BRT line. That was the logic I had to deal with while living there and politians there wonder why so people move out.
I was so pleasantly shocked by the NGE montage that I started laughing hysterically and instantly subscribed to the channel. Keep up the high quality train and planning based action, highly entertaining and on top of that: informative!
I want NYC to have light rail instead of buses 😭😭😭
I've lived in NYC and Boston
I wish history did NY's infrastructure less dirty so that would be feasible.
NYC has a massive subway system which is basically light rail built underground.
@@breotan I strongly disagree with calling them basically the same
@@irishkelly2062 Subways are generally much better than LRT because they have even higher capacity and complete separation from traffic (no intersections). Unfortunately the MTA has fallen into disorder as the years have passed.
Doesn't NYC have a subway that goes through 4/5 of the boroughs
MTA Select Bus Service+: **heavy sweating intensifies**
SBS, also known as 'just a regular bus stuck in traffic' with a different color of paint.
Umm that is not even legit BRT it’s pathetic and an insult go to Jakarta for a real BRT or South America
@@SparenofIria bus lanes exist dumbass
"Or You're from winnipeg and the title induces rage in you". Three. I was option three. Thanks for the shout out
Same lol. "Let's add literally one small bus only road in one inaccessible area along a route that not many people use and call it rapid transit"
@@graeme4995 Hey at least it SOMETHING
@@graeme4995 what the fuck my dude, why do you live in my city and have my name...
Winnipeg's BRT was designed to be easily converted to LRT, using Bombardier Flexity cars, when the time comes. The line has been extended all the way to the U of M, and has been upgraded from regular buses to articulates. Local bus service branches out from the BRT stations to cover the area. Plans are under way to extend the line to Kildonan Place.
Istanbul's BRT system is one of the most professionally done that I've seen. It literally goes across the entire province with around 150 stations with each station is adjacent to the transeuropean highway, accessed by overpasses and in a similar, leveled fashion like train stations. Buses have 2 to 4 articulations for different distance routes, and can easily take over 250 passengers each. The BRT road is smooth asphalt and is separated from the traffic, and buses move around 100km/h. Whole ride from one end to the other takes around 1.5 hours while covering distance about 300km. The city also has about 10 subway lines, two train lines and 4 tram lines, which also cover about double the distance in total. The reason they picked BRT for that specific task is the heavy slopes that the route has, and a full train would definitely have issues climbing up a 20° slope after stopping at the station halfway through. Buses are better in that regard, so I found it a clever concept. Lines, road and vehicles are maintained quite well so it's actually quieter and comfier than a train ride too.
Istanbul has the best public transportation system I've ever seen. And don't forget about the ferries bringing you back and forth from the Asian to the European side.
holy shit you can't be more wrong. all the numbers are wrong
More like:
The BRT (Metrobüs) is 50 km long with 45 stations. It takes 1.5-2 hours (somewhere in between)
Metrobüs busses carry around 200 passengers.
We have currently 7 open metro lines though many more under construction.
3 modern tram lines (T1 T4 and T5) and one heritage tram (T3) are in operation.
There is one “train” line, kinda a suburban train, the Marmaray. There were two before, but they connected both with a tunnel under the Bosphorus so that’s one line now.
That should be most stuff corrected.
@@tahasahin8408 I was like " how the hell can a 100kmh bus cover 300 km in 2 HOURS??"🤣
@@adenm8963 It's more like 50 km total with peak speed of 70 kmh between stops lmao
I come here as a Dutch looking at stuff that is a simple fact of live here, while across the ocean its not
Well, yes. We don't even have that discussion in Europe. The only argument for a BRT is "we cannot afford something better"
If there are enough users/capacity/space, just build a tramway/lightrail system. I'm from Belgium and happy to see that trams are making a comeback (new tram in Liège, new line in Ghent,...).
And I hope that in a few years, they will start to build a tramway between Hasselt and Maastricht.
And another project (but unfortunately you don't hear anything about it anymore) that I found very interesting (and I would use it!) was a light rail between Aalst-Dendermonde-Sint-Niklaas. There is no direct railway/tramway connection between those cities.
@@denjo3131 They should hire a team of people who will listen to the public with surveys and one-on-one conversations to discover public transportation routes that would be popular. Well, I can dream....
@@denjo3131 Qbuzz U-OV (bus company) has in Utrecht a few tramlines. and instead of replacing the trams with busses they did vice versa! Utrecht-Science park (the Uithoflijn) had the Bus 12 VAN HOOL AGG3000 , but now it has Tram 22 CAF URBOS 100 5 by 5. And also Utrecht-IJsselstein only has Trams no busses! It’s so peacefully instead of busses
The only light rail system that seems to be expanding in the foreseeable future is the LA Metro Rail, and that's only because LA's hosting the Olympics in 7 years, so they need the infrastructure to accommodate it.
Buffalo's NFTA rail is slowly expanding downtown. But the plans for expanding north to the mall and UB north campus have stalled.
What about Toronto? We're building tons of LRT lines and obviously we all complain because they are LRT lines instead of Elevated lines
Seattle continues to expand! ST2, our second phase (including a novel floating bridge segment) is turning up over the next two years, and ST3 in the next 10-20. ST4 isn’t yet approved but is exciting! It provides a well-connected city metro and may improve our sometimes-flaky funding sources.
Phoenix's Valley Metro Rail is also expanding, even now. However, it is somewhat slow, and future expansion plans only cover the city of Phoenix.
the CCs during the "Railgelion" bit absolutely killed me
As the late Mitch Hedberg once said, “the great thing about escalators is that they don’t break, they can only become stairs”. That’s my view in BRT; at the end of the line, they can become a bus and continue on into neighborhoods to deliver last mile. You can reap the benefits of light rail with dedicated ROW in high density areas, and still serve low density routes. Maybe we just need to reimagine the BRT vehicle to allow for two-ended operation, daisy chaining, low floor boarding, and other features that light rail has. The lower initial cost cannot just be dismissed as “long terms costs are equal”, as a high initial cost might prevent a project from even starting. I would rather have more mass transit everywhere, at the same or even higher long term cost, than much fewer transit options overall.
The point of LRT and BRT is to bring people within walking distance of their neighborhood. There is no need to bus people directly to their house nor would that be anywhere near cost effective.
@@urmomsahoe1 i have a bus stop literally right outside my home and I couldn't be happier
@@robotspark363 Thats wonderful and I'm glad you enjoy it! It still wouldn't be cost effective or practical for everyone to have that unless we went to high density housing.
@@urmomsahoe1 That is a fair point, yes - I suppose even if it wasn't outside my house it would be within reasonable walking distance at the farthest, which is a good compromise
I used to live in jersey city, near the light rail, was definitely interesting to see so many shots of it
I take it every day, I was surprised to see the many shots.of it
BRT has ONE big advantage over light (or heavy) rail - branching. You can have one trunk dedicated route, then have branches on ordinary roads.
BTW DMUs are *heavy* rail, in the UK anyway. Even the Pacers.
Yes, in the Netherlands we have something that can be defined as a brt system (a bus at least every 10 minutes on mostly free bus lanes).
It goes between Bijlmer (south east Amsterdam), Schiphol Airport and Haarlem.
However a lot of passengers need to travel between Bijlmer and Haarlem directly, so there is also a more direct service taking the highway and a non-stop peak service between Haarlem and Bijlmer.
Within any train system this would be very expensive if not impossible: creating a railed branch and places to overtake other vehicles.
This is obvious. The question is how to force government into spending MORE money on creating these systems in place?!
The right question is how can you get more m16 rifle to force peoples paying more taxes to fund the system.
4. I am from Winnipeg and am always looking at videos comparing our “beloved blue line” to what everyone else was saying was a good idea but I knew little about.
A new Armchair Urbanist video will be out by the end of the month! I apologise for the delay, classes have been rough on my time.
Edit: I'm a bit behind. But the next episode is on RR Electrification!
Edit 2: I lied, the next episode is on Philadelphia
@@owengibson5191 *don’t you dare*
In Douai, France, they decided to renew the bus system by another system ten years ago. This system was called tram, but had nothing from a real tram system. These were buses, running on rubber tires, riding on one main and long road that they completely messed up to make a "path" for those "trams" which ended up by making the roads narrower and more slalomy than a rally special. and those buses were supposed to be driven electronically with captors in the ground, but this system never worked, and even the company who sold it never managed to make it work, so it was driven by a driver. And the worst of it all was that the company was filling bankruptcy even before the beginning of the project. After all of that I heard that there was a lot of money stolen on the project aswell. And now the road there is miserable, there are huge portions of the street allocated to now normal buses from another company that could ride on the normal road. Sidewalks are much smaller, the driveable portion of the road is much thinner and shittier to drive, there are much more car crashes than before, and commute times along this road doubled, both for buses and for cars. That was one of the worst urban project I think I've ever seen in my life. Literally anything else, even what was before with a normal road with normal buses would have been much better.
In Surrey BC, we were about to have an LRT system.
I think most people said it was unecessary use of money since it seemed pretty useless, and was gonna be on the same roads as a bus anyway most of the time.
With the changing skyline, it was seen as unwise apparently to put money so early.
I think people wanted a bigger skytrain expansion but the city didnt want to shell the money.
I wasn't expecting to hear Cruel Angel's Thesis in a video about buses and trains, but I respect it.
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.
The reason why I clicked on this video was in fact
4. The thumbnail looked interesting
If yot are both transit nerd and anime fan ending hits especially hard :D
Light Rail vs BRT (or even just buses) curiously resemble to a problem in software development field called technical debt.
The idea in technical debt, is that there are often some small flaws in your software sources/environment.
Those flaws can appear with a lot of reasons, for example an inexperienced developer writes a bit of "bad code", or requirements of the software change etc...
The first part of the problem here is that it will always, regarding short time cost (time and means), be cheaper to compose with these flaws than correct them.
So for example, if I'm using a function (FN) that is returning 1 when it should return 0 (that is just a convention that hasn't been followed here, we don't know, maybe convention changed since function was written), it is much easier for me to simply adapt my code (check for 1 where 0 should be) than to go and fix the function.
The second part of the problem is that, on the long time cost, those unfixed flaws finally ad up to a lot of continuous struggle, which can become quickly (accumulating through time) much higher than the cost of fixing the initial flaw. It often also increases the cost of fixing the initial flaw over time.
So for example, now that I adapted my code the FN flawed function, if someone wants to maintain my code, he/she will struggle quite a lot at first because the expected convention isn't respected. And, if he/she wants to fix that, now not only it has to fix the FN function, but also my code using it.
With technical debt, there is always some kind of battle between devs/engineers, and management/stakeholders, because managers and stakeholders often don't understand that quality fixes have to be done for a brighter future. Often, the only moment they realize it, it is already too late, and fixing flaws at that point is alike rebuilding software form scratch, if not more expensive.
I feel like it can be easily transposed to LR vs BRT vs Buses. Officials see there is a need for transportation.
Therefore, they look at options, and, because they are unsure whether people will use this new line a lot, they put some traditional buses, cheaper than LR at the moment.
Then, as time passes, more people start using the bus. And so capacity has to be increased. Again, dual choice, and again, at the moment it is cheaper than adding some more buses than building LR line.
Even at the moment when all investments made up to it would be quite larger than LR, it will still appear cheaper to just add some buses.
And the only moment where deciders will realize will eventually be when the overhead cost of buses on a short time span (let's say 5 - 10 years) offsets the cost of building a new LR line as a replacement.
This is especially problematic with elected people, when they need to have some kind of accounting at the end of a 5 year period or so : for them, it will always be cheaper to get buses than build a LR line, even if in the end (10-20 + years), more money is wasted. And of course, we can also say kind of the same for trains, as heavy rail is an investment that is on the super long run.
I feel like in some instances it’s very impractical to replace buses with this in large cities, like London, where the cost of developing it would be astronomical and also it causes more congestion as it blocks cars and things like that.
"Light rail often ends up being a similar price to a proper BRT system" [citation needed]
The key here is on "proper".
But as I said in three comments already, nobody builds a "proper" BRT. They just take some existing roads, paint some lines, make a fancier bus stop, some maps and that is it.
It is not that hard to imagine how a real BRT would cost as much as rail. They would use just as much or more area, their need sturdier tarmac or concrete pavement (rail just needs crushed stone, the sleepers and the rails themselves), you would need ticketing systems in the bus stops akin to what you get in train stations, etc. And when we say '"cost" here, I think we are implying cost/benefit ratio. Once you factor in the lower capacity, it is not spectacular that BRTs cost just as much as light rail per passenger
@@fresagrus4490 a pretty accurate description of bogota's "transmilenio" system. bus lanes and stations are in the middle of wide avenues, every station has a counter window with at least one employee to recharge passengers' value cards (inefficient as hell). the ride quality is horrible, the roads are full of potholes and it's only getting worse. the combination of full, heavy buses, cheaply built roads and a lack of maintenance just doesn't work out. also the city's traffic is one of the worst on the planet, and the buses in spite of having their own lines cannot escape it completely so you can expect some delays. it is pretty much like a light rail system could be, but much worse due to all the downfalls mentioned. the system is quite large with about 110 kilometers and nearly 150 stations, but if you take into consideration the size of Bogota with its 8 million inhabitants, it becomes obvios that a brt system has been the wrong choice from the beginning. even a light rail wouldn't be enough, that's why they are now building their first proper elevated metro line...
in my coutry germany the usual standard for 1 million + cities is a metro (or lightrail) system with several lines covering large parts of the city, complemented by a suburban railway system to connect the larger metropolitan area aswell as tram and bus lines all over the city. to think that a mayor of a big city would prefer a brt system instead of railways is just... idk what to say. maybe i am a bit biased though :D
i know i didn't talk about the cost, which was the original topic of your comment, i just wrote what came to my mind ^^
@@ranzschwein42 no, thanks. No need to apologize. It is a very good insight on the so complimented and prized colombian BRTs.
A city with more than 1 million needs heavy rail and way past the point where BRT can be considered as an option.
@@fresagrus4490 of course it is also a valid point that bogota's brt system could be implemented and grow in such a short period of time, which wouldnt have been possible with a railway system. the problem is that there have been plans to build a metro system since the 1960s if i remember correctly, but politicians never managed to realize anything until they finally put a bus system which was obviously cheaper and more practical short term, but nowadays people hate it and bogotans are even being bullied by the people from Medellin who are extremely proud of being the only colombian city with a metro system (which doesn't necessarily have to mean anything ofc)
In Mexico City there has been a boom about BRT systems, only because they are cheap, but in the 20th Century, the Light Rail was the most important transport system before the opening of the Metro System.
Isnt mex. City prone to earthquakes? Brts might have a benefit there
The only downfall to light rails trains is that you can't chase them when you're running late lol
It's also nice to not have a slow bus slowing down traffic by going the speed limit or just full on stopping to pick or drop someone off
3:06 the Phoenix light rail, my favorite one of them all
Is it possible that BRT would pave the way to a light rail system? BRT would be a cheaper start, and improve city public transit ridership. After BRT proves the concept, couldn't dedicated BRT routes be switched to light rail relatively easily?
Helsinki is doing this.
You'd need competent politicians to do that. Not "I look at the initial costs and pick whatever project is easiest to sell politically".
You would have to plan for the conversion when the system is designed. Because they have a lower CoF, trains can't do steep hills like busses. So if you design a BRT right of way with lots of steep gradients it is going to be difficult of not impossible to convert to rail.
Plus, then you would essentially be paying the installation cost of both systems to get the benefit of one. BRT is cheaper to implement because a larger proportion of the cost is in the vehicles. It's less expensive to build for and buy trains than to build for and buy busses, upgrade the bus infrastructure for trains, buy trains, and try to sell the busses to somebody else.
Considering the upgrade would be many many years down the line the initial cost savings of BRT would be mitigated by the fact that you will have been paying for long term maintenance of it. It would end up costing more in the long run compared to just starting with LRT. Most cities already have buses, they are usually just regular buses that take normal city street routes. If a cit has a need for buses it will benefit from LRT systems, there is no need to prove the concept.
Great comparison.
The main issue with light rail is the initial cost (implementation), it is typically 5, 10, or more times higher than BRT.
I think transit agencies (municipalities) should look at both options and consider both. Many agencies go for just one. I think depending on the corridor constraints and resources available, you can target for corridors for BRT and other corridors for LR
Huh, it's pretty cool to see the Adelaide Metro BRT (or O-bahn as we call it here) in a video. I've only been on the O-bahn once this year and that's because the Gawler train line has been closed for a long while (I think they're electrifying the route?). The bus route I was on serves as my daily commute to work (less than 10 minutes spent on the bus), a way to get to an interchange to go to some friends' houses, as my current most efficient way to get to the city, and runs along some main roads in the city CBD whenever I have had to make that trip. That's just one bus route which serves multiple purposes and not just for me. I think our BRT system works nicely as an addition to our public transport network, running alongside trains (not literally next to).
To keep it short: Trains are better than busses.
Train good, car bad
Train.
not exactly, but i can't say shit cause i'm biased as a train enthusiast lol
I get your point, however I do question your use of one of the few successful BRT systems in the world for footage. The Adelaide O-Bahn is extremely fast, frequent and keep seeing exponetional growth in patronage. Personally I feel it should be converted to a heavy rail line, but for all intents and purposes it does its job well.
I was so confused when you showed Hudson-Bergen light rail
as Bergen is a city in norway and there is something of an ocean in the way of light rail between the places
checked ofc and bergen is apparently a place in new york
One benefit of BRTs is the ability to deviate on a timetable basis. For instance, the University I go to is next to the BRT circuit, and during uni weeks the busses on the BRT can leave the busway and drop me directly at the University entrance before getting back on the busway. Then when uni is on break they can just stay on the busway with no deviations. On the other BRT circuits in the city the same thing happens for schools and the technical college.
Ðat's interesting. But leaving ðe busway may reduce ðe R in BRT, as it would have to go þrough traffic
@@tomasbeltran04050 potentially, but it's not like the bus is making deviations of more than 2km, and only a handful of routes deviate, most remain on the busway.
@@jb-br8bf þanks for sharing
You missed two very import positive points in the LRTs favor. Electro power generating dynamic breaking and smoother ride. Dynamic breaks turn the trains traction motor into a power generator every time it comes to a stop or goes down a grade. This give the train the ability to offset some of it's power consumption costs by pumping some of that power back into a power grid or rail traction power grid. The nature of the track itself means there are less bumps and dips for the train to deal with and so the passengers enjoy a smoother less stressful ride, especially when standing.
Edmonton Transit Systems LRT feeds power back into the Epcor power grid every time they slow down or go down a hill. The same can be said for the Calgary Cattle Car system.
Also there are the personnel costs, because each new bus needs a new driver, whereas an extended train still needs just one.
@@2712animefreak Plus the cost of dedicated, always deployed track and station maintenance staff. There's a lot more people working those trains constantly besides just the driver. Still, the operating efficiencies start to become cheaper per passenger moved over a bus.
You forgot the biggest advantage:
Trains are *way* cooler than buses
4): You live in the sticks and are wondering what these big boxes on wheels are.
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.