Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
If the ridership is not there for buses, the cheapest and most flexible mode by far, then I don't see how it can justify high-capacity light rail and subway.
|
I get that you have some pre-determined talking points that you'd like to get out, but could everyone maybe stop ignoring what I actually say? I'll repeat myself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
They'd have to either abandon 90% of their service area as unservable, or have to spend big on express rights-of-way. They could build busways instead of rail, but it would be just as expensive and less sexy to voters.
|
The kind of buses you'd have to build to serve 90% of Nashville or Charlotte are NOT "the cheapest and most flexible." Their choice is to either give up the future to cars, or spend big on transit lines that are significant enough to either support park-and-rides, or to provide the political support for upzoning and new street grids around the stations (ie to make the land use changes they need for transit to be convenient to more people). You *can* do that with BRT/busways for somewhat cheaper than rail, but it's still a major capital investment and is not "the cheapest and most flexible."
The notion that there is a simple, quick answer for making transit work in places like this is inconvenient but wrong. The core problem in these places is land use, which simply running more buses does not solve because absent land use changes not enough people can physically access them to make the frequent service worthwhile, or to sustain the citywide political support to pay for them. These cities need something they can sell as transformative to voters.
I honestly have no idea if Charlotte's specific plans here make any sense. But I do know there's no easy or cheap answer.