Alternative title: Sometimes, Trains Are Just Better
TL:DW; Trains have better per-rider capex and opex costs. Despite train sets being more expensive than buses and station/railway infrastructure that might cost more than busways, trains and railway infrastructure last far longer, require fewer drivers or sometimes none per vehicle, structures, tunnels and bridges are relatively fixed costs that don’t need to be significantly more to support more riders.
If I remember correctly, bus rapid transit, when fully implemented, can have better value for cities, especially those in poorer countries where the upfront investment for large infrastructure is too high. It can move a lot of people with large articulated buses that run at very high frequency. They don’t need tracks and allow the line to run even if one bus is down (a major drawback for rail transportation). Anyway, always good to spread the very real advantages of urban rail transportation.
Yes. Absolutely there are some good advantages, and no doubt the upfront costs are signficant. The argument in this video is that over the life of a subway, train or LRT service that since buses have to be replaced many times over one train’s lifespan.
@Rentlar are train tunnels cheaper than bus tunnels? The ones that get built tend to be because single lane traffic tunnels are rare (and dangerous) and the are a larger bore than a train tunnel.
The requirements for a train tunnel are different than for a bus tunnel, which “may” be cheaper depending on what you compare to. Usually a bus tunnel will need to also accommodate diesel and gas(petrol) burning vehicles which increases ventilation requirements significantly. A train tunnel might be electric only or have diesel engines running through it. A train tunnel will need to meet the accepted standard rail vehicle envelope of the region or the isolated rapid transit system, same with road vehicles, but since the latter includes taller trucks, the height clearance would be necessarily higher than buses.
Single line width rail tunnels are used, but dual lane tunnels are the choice for some new passenger rail projects for the speed of being able to bore them even if it is more expensive.
@Rentlar I though two single track tunnels were faster to bore than a single double track tunnel.
Kinda. They are about the same speed, comparing the Scarborough Subway single TBM vs. the Eglinton Crosstown are both purpoted to travel 10m to 15m per day. Even if the speed of the smaller TBMs is a bit faster, the design of having one tunnel vs. two tunnels would be different. Costs of tunneling might vary greatly by project, accounting for each locations’ ground conditions and existing infrastructure to navigate around. So I concede that I could be wrong about the price in the general case when comparing 1 big vs. 2 small machines.
I’m over here having to choose between cars and walking in the busy road.
Creating bike infrastructure is the quickest, cheapest per ton way to reduce carbon emissions, if your place isn’t somewhere that wants to consider public transit.
TIL on this one. Thanks dude.
Why not both? Or train then subway? Or train then electric scooters for the last mine? I imagine in city specifically the coverage from trains alone is pretty poor.
The dwellings and amenities within a 15 minutes walk, bike or other mode from a transit stop is important, and of course if you can have both buses, trains and other micromobility that’s ideal.
This video mainly discusses how routes over a certain threshold of ridership would be better and more cheaply served over the long run by vehicles that sit between rails rather than buses.
I know it’s a Thameslink train in the thumbnail but I can’t make out the station. It’s definitely on the Bedford-Brighton line between Luton and London.
kentish town
graffiti on top of the building.
