Report a Comment

Wrong. Once you build a BRT system, that's what you got. The only other way to power a bus other than with hydrocarbon fuel is to use an overhead wire. With the overhead wire, you should just use a train since it has more capacity, lower long-term operating costs, and greater room for expansion.

Your argument is just not true. While it's possible that someone might make a battery that can power a multiple ton vehicle at some point in the future (though probably not in your lifetime) you still have the problems of capacity. You can fit roughly 100 people on a bus on a good day. You can fit that many on one train car. Light rail cars can be grouped together on groups of three or four, depending on the specific car design.

The environmentalism argument for trains is just not about the energy used to propel the vehicle. It's also about the energy saved when people live in traditional walkable towns/cities. What's more energy efficient, Bethesda or Rockville Pike? Bethesda because you can function and perform your daily routines without a car. Bethesda never would have been built if it weren't for that train running underground. By not having to park a car, trains enable walkable land uses to occur. One of the most fundamental features of suburban sprawl is the large parking lots that push everything farther apart. With a train, there is much less need to waste land on automobile storage.

Just like I wrote in the post, are there any BRT systems in the United States that carry 68,000 people per day? Because of the political capital required to build one of these systems, once you build it you're stuck with it in perpetuity. Building BRT would wasting money on something that will never work for its intended use. Cost-effectiveness is not only about initial up front capital costs. It is also about building something that serves its intended purpose well. BRT is "penny-wise and pound-foolish."

Or, do you really just want BRT in someone else's backyard? Or, do you really see BRT as a way to distract and delay the issues? BRT was never meant to be an alternative to rails. It was something that was invented in the mid-20th century by the Highway Lobby to combat the building of any new trains by distracting the conversation and trying to make sure the highway lobby would build the buses and asphalt rather than any money going to any train builders. They made sure that gasoline and asphalt was always in the discussion. You're doing an excellent job of being a mid-20th century Highway Lobby pawn. The sad thing is that it's now the early-21st century.

by Cavan on Dec 16, 2008 9:02 am • link • report