Alon Levy, co-lead of the transportation and land use program at New York University’s Marron Institute, has spent years studying why some countries are able to build transport infrastructure cheaply and others aren’t.
Though the preliminary business case of the expansion of Gold Coast light rail includes few details, Levy estimates that the project may ultimately cost as much as 10 times more than comparable European infrastructure.
Those include, Levy says, a lack of contracting transparency, over-engineering, politicisation, poor allocation of cost risk – and above all, contracting out to the private sector.
I agree that light rail is vastly preferable to buses where appropriate, but I think you’re going too far in the other direction.
Yes it is. That’s why, for example, we’re able to have special event buses take you from Chermside to Lang Park or the Gabba when there’s a game or concert on.
Of course, @[email protected] underestimates the degree to which rail can be scaled, too. It’s quite easy to add a car or two to a particular light rail engine when peak use demands it.
It can suck if done badly, like in the situation you describe. It doesn’t have to suck. It’s important to clearly communicate and make allowances when rerouting though. For example, you might have to completely abandon several stops, which needs to be clearly announced ahead of time, and if it’s a decision made en-route, you should give the opportunity for people to get off outside of a scheduled stop, if appropriate.
Bus stops cost effectively zero. They can be just a sign post at a minimum, and even a shelter costs almost nothing compared to the significant infrastructure costs of rail.
Bus lanes are optional. They should be used. And frankly I don’t think we should ever have 3 lanes in the same direction without at least one of them being either a bus lane or a separated bike lane/bike path. But most buses run most of their routes on entirely normal roads.
Honestly the parent comment is just straight-up wrong here. Maintenance costs for buses (btw, buses, not busses) and trains are night and day. Train maintenance costs are so much less than buses it’s not funny.
Do elaborate =o
Did you reply to the wrong person, or?
Tell us how bus maintenence far exceeds that of train carriages. Just seems highly counterintuitive.
To move the same number of people you need several times more buses, which means more engines that can fail, wonky acceleration profiles from the variability of road traffic conditions wears engines and physical road conditions wear tires. The lifetime of a rail system is at least 3x as long as a bus. Many metro systems across north america are still running some trains from the 80s that are only just being replaced. Chips and burrs on metal wheels can easily be ground down then replaced after many, many repair cycles, whereas worn or blown tires can only be replaced when the train wears.
So you’re right, buses can can be set up faster and are more versatile on our existing road networks and lower upfront capital costs. In the long term, trains are cheaper to maintain and operate and provide a better rider experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0gZPTC15M0
It does? It seems completely obvious to me. Buses are like cars, but bigger. Cars have huge numbers of complex parts that need to be maintained, but the most obvious one is tyres. Rubber tyres wear out, and on heavier vehicles they wear out faster. Fossil fuel–powered buses additionally have very complex engines and transmissions which require significant amounts of maintenance for which there is simply no equivalent on trains. Electric buses perform better in this capacity, at the cost of being heavier and thus putting more wear on their tyres. Because of their maintenance needs, you’ll need to over-purchase buses in order to have the required number running while others are off the road for maintenance.
There’s also the secondary effect that buses do a lot of damage to roads, being both heavier and more frequently accelerating & decelerating at the same locations than single-occupancy cars, and thus you end up needing to spend more money on road resurfacing. And again, EVs end up worse in this regard than petrol, diesel, or natural gas vehicles.
Trains are steel on steel. They wear out shockingly little. Their electric motors require less maintenance than ICE engines. And the vehicles themselves last a lot longer due to this simplicity, so you can buy trains now and keep using them for far longer than you can keep using a bus you buy now. I’m not clear on the lifespan of electric buses, except that at a minimum the battery will need to be replaced much more regularly than a train would need replacing.