Road Guy Rob has released an interesting video on Minneapolis–Saint Paul's newest BRT line. I think it really shows that BRT is overly complicated when you want to do it correctly, with the main real benefit that it is cheaper. BRT is really not a good solution unless you are willing to go all in and spend the money to do it successfully such as Transjakarta in Indonesia, but at that point it's just as costly as rail. However it is possible to do it a step at a time like this project does. And ultimately it's still going to be cheaper than any form of rail...because unfortunately the cost of rail transport is costly (if not inflated).
A comment on the video makes a good point, though.
And that's rather true. The Ottawa Transitway is a good example of this. While their light-metro/LRT lines don't follow the exact route of the Transitway, they still connect similar areas. It kind of acts as a cheap way to get the ball rolling on transit oriented development. Once you develop nodes and demand increases thanks to a BRT line, you can then invest in LRT.
I've considered that instead of the 4.5 billion at minimum we are going to have to spend on the Cambridge LRT line here, we could instead save the money and use BRT for now. The planned LRT line essentially follows existing arterial roads already, so the infrastructure is mostly there. We're basically paying billions of dollars for bridges that cost hundreds of millions...and then plonking some tracks down on existing roads. We are getting ripped off by consultants and contractors. We could send BRT buses down the same route for significantly less money for the time being. Considering Cambridge is carbrained and doesn't even want the LRT we're basically forcing upon them anyway, it might be easier to "sell" BRT to the voters. With some creativity modifying roads and traffic signals, we could probably ensure buses have priority over other traffic (it's not like the LRT we have is fast...it literally stops at red lights like cars, lmao) to keep a useful headway. BRT could be a useful tool to connect Cambridge with the rest of the region for much cheaper whilst also catalyzing development and more transit demand, which in the future could justify the LRT (right now it isn't even worth the energy your neurons require to think about whether it's worth it).
In any case, while I think BRT is shit 90% of the time, it seems like the sort of higher order transit Cambridge can benefit from. It'd move more people, be cheaper, create demand and prove to voters that LRT would eventually make sense. If Minneapolis–Saint Paul can build a modern BRT line with numerous bridges/viaducts - the one thing that is making the price of our LRT skyrocket - for less than what we paid for our current LRT, it may be worth a consideration. I love trains, but I hate wasting money. The anti-anything-on-4-wheels fascists might seethe at the idea of more vehicles on roads - or indeed, more road infrastructure being required - but they can't be taken seriously.
Anyway, here's the video.
A comment on the video makes a good point, though.
Quote:You know why this is a good idea?
Because you're basically building light rail infrastructure in advance. In a few decades when the economic growth helped by your bus services enables the municipality to afford it, you can just replace those "arterial buses" with trams and light rail without having to fuck about with routing.
And that's rather true. The Ottawa Transitway is a good example of this. While their light-metro/LRT lines don't follow the exact route of the Transitway, they still connect similar areas. It kind of acts as a cheap way to get the ball rolling on transit oriented development. Once you develop nodes and demand increases thanks to a BRT line, you can then invest in LRT.
I've considered that instead of the 4.5 billion at minimum we are going to have to spend on the Cambridge LRT line here, we could instead save the money and use BRT for now. The planned LRT line essentially follows existing arterial roads already, so the infrastructure is mostly there. We're basically paying billions of dollars for bridges that cost hundreds of millions...and then plonking some tracks down on existing roads. We are getting ripped off by consultants and contractors. We could send BRT buses down the same route for significantly less money for the time being. Considering Cambridge is carbrained and doesn't even want the LRT we're basically forcing upon them anyway, it might be easier to "sell" BRT to the voters. With some creativity modifying roads and traffic signals, we could probably ensure buses have priority over other traffic (it's not like the LRT we have is fast...it literally stops at red lights like cars, lmao) to keep a useful headway. BRT could be a useful tool to connect Cambridge with the rest of the region for much cheaper whilst also catalyzing development and more transit demand, which in the future could justify the LRT (right now it isn't even worth the energy your neurons require to think about whether it's worth it).
In any case, while I think BRT is shit 90% of the time, it seems like the sort of higher order transit Cambridge can benefit from. It'd move more people, be cheaper, create demand and prove to voters that LRT would eventually make sense. If Minneapolis–Saint Paul can build a modern BRT line with numerous bridges/viaducts - the one thing that is making the price of our LRT skyrocket - for less than what we paid for our current LRT, it may be worth a consideration. I love trains, but I hate wasting money. The anti-anything-on-4-wheels fascists might seethe at the idea of more vehicles on roads - or indeed, more road infrastructure being required - but they can't be taken seriously.
Anyway, here's the video.