Even if you think what you would say is obvious, please add. This is genuinely something I think makes sense regarding local bus routes given the longevity of light rail and how infrequently routes change, but I also suffer from confirmation bias, so I’m hoping for reasons this would be a terrible idea but obviously would prefer reasons it would be an even more amazing idea than I thought.

  • lps@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Light rail is infinitely more expensive to construct and it only takes one delay/accident and all subsequent trains after cause a log jam…vs a bus which can route around it.

    A better solution uses corridors dedicated to buses that are electric powered.

    Something like this was done in Colombia with these routes being connected by ground hubs, similar to subway stations.

    • paaviloinen@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a common misbelief. Trams and light rail usually have points where the units can go around if one unit has derailed, unless the unit has tipped over, which in itself is very very rare. Good planning is crucial. “A better solution uses corridors dedicated to buses that are electric powered.” Nope, nope, nope. You have to present arguments to this claim, maybe then I can be bothered to counterargument such nonsense.

    • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s like saying a ship is more expensive than a car. It depends.

      A tram is not „infinitely“ (what absurd statement is that anyway) more expensive than a bus.

      Construction cost is not everything, and they’re not even that much higher, you also need to consider service life (much longer with trains), energy cost per passenger mile (much lower with trains thanks to the lower resistance), etc.

      What is best is always depending on the specific circumstances.

      The biggest limitation of buses is capacity, and a highly used tram is cheaper per passenger mile than a bus. Try replacing the S-Bahn in Berlin with BRT, see how far that gets you. You’d probably need to bulldoze a new highway… speaking of which:

      Germany is actually hellbent on building a highway right through its capital Berlin, which currently clocks in at 700 milion € for 3.2 km. I expect the whole thing to end at ~2 bn € for ~7 km.

      So I think the costs of public transport are really not the issue people should be focusing on.

    • nbailey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Electric busses are actually a lot more complex logistically than electric trains. With a train, you just need a bunch of big-ass transformers and overhead wires. Expensive to install, but very reliable and relatively low maintenance over many years.

      Batteries on the other hand are heavy, relatively fragile, degrade quickly, and very expensive. With a 100KWh EV, about 1/3 of the total cost is the battery, so it would likewise increase the cost of a bus.

      Charging is another problem, instead of the whole system using energy real-time, you now need a distribution system that can take hundreds of busses at night and charge them all back up, requiring a massive amount of power in a somewhat short time. While it’s nice that energy is generally cheaper at night, you still need the infrastructure that can take that load.

      So, it’s not to say that there’s no place for them, just that our main focus needs to be on rail in most places. There are lots of low-density places with cheap power and temperate weather that absolutely need BEV busses, but a lot more with challenging weather, older grids, and medium density that are a better fit for rail.