Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
Certainly I agree that every city should have Jarrett Walker-style frequent networks, with LA Metro Rapid-style bus priority on their trunk lines. However it's worth noting that the disconnected characteristics of these southern cities' street networks unquestionably limits what you can accomplish with bus networks. Buses work great on street grids and poorly amid cul-de-sacs. Nashville and Charlotte have tiny street grids that only serve a small portion of their overall populations. Compare to Edmonton which is almost entirely gridded.
They *can* do more with buses. Unquestionably. But they also have to serve large populations that cannot be well-served by buses on existing streets, which are crucial to getting voter approval for transit spending. The population is too far out and the streets are too twisty and nobody lives directly along the few big radial roads, which forces transit into a model using park-and-rides along express non-arterial rights-of-way. So while I'm sympathetic to your position and agree with it up to a point, it really is more complicated in these cities than "just start by running more buses." They can't effectively run them in many of the places they would need to run them to get the support they need to get. They 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.
|
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. Light rail and subway need to be surrounded by high density and be connected to other transit even more than buses do. Park-and-ride alone cannot make up for all that.
What metropolitan area in the US has the highest bus ridership per capita? It's New York, the metropolitan area with the most rail transit. New Yorkers rely on buses more than anyone else in the US.
When Calgary first built light rail in 1981, its annual ridership was 53 million (linked trips). Today, the ridership is 103 million, representing 94% growth. Their population grew from 592k to 1.24 million during that time, representing 109% growth. So Calgary built light rail not because it was lacking transit riders, but because it had too many riders. The high ridership came first, not the light rail.
Charlotte just finished building a 31km light rail line a few months ago, they are still building a 16km streetcar line, and their ridership is in a downward spiral. An additional $7 billion more rail doesn't seem like the answer, and it might even be a distraction. They should focus more about incremental ridership growth instead obsessing over these big, sexy new rail projects.