Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
Rail is important if it can deliver faster service on a popular corridor or when buses can no longer handle the ridership on a route.
Urban rail service has less flexibility and means more transfers. There must be a good complementary bus network to compensate for the extra transfers. If rail service is introduced, there must be an evaluation that typical trip times actually improve including waiting time.
|
Exactly, I see it as a gradation based on ridership.
For example, Montreal's A-10 bus corridor will be converted into rapid transit after 40 years of makeshift bus lanes. The buses literally pile up when they arrive Downtown. This is the case of a good gradation in transit mode.
Why build a rail line if the frequency isn't going to be there? Or if the demand isn't there in the first place. A lot of U.S. cities are getting shiny new light rail systems but the ridership isn't there to justify the investment (Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Tucson). Meanwhile, I'm sure there are corridors with buses operating over capacity.