One could accomplish nearly as much with a high-speed bus lane on I5 with greater flexibility, far superior reliability, and at less than 5% of the cost.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is Not as Productive as Light Rail Transit
A study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that light rail vehicle was 15.5 percent less costly to operate than bus, all other factors being equal. Low floor light rail cars have a larger capacity than low floor buses of comparable length. The average capacity of a 40-foot low floor bus is only 37 seated passengers due to space that is taken up by the wheel wells which intrude on interior space that otherwise could be used for fare paying riders. While an articulated two-section low floor bus contains more seats, it will still have less capacity than a low floor light rail car. Unlike BRT, a light rail line can increase line capacity by adding more cars to a train, resulting in an increase in operator productivity. The only way to increase the capacity of BRT is to add more buses, each of which will require another driver resulting in higher operating costs.
IOW, every bus requires a driver on the union payroll.
Trains/light rail carry far more passengers and require fewer drivers.
In fact, some sophisticated and highly automated rail systems need no union drivers at all!
Willie, in every Cost Benefit Analysis an assumption of demand has to be made. If your demand assumption is off on rail you cannot cut your cost model down to fit the actualized (real versus assumed) demand. Rail systems are extremely costly to install and bring with them a very high annualized fixed cost versus variable cost with them. If you don’t need to run 10 buses, but can satisfy demand with 5, your savings is in variable costs is on the order of 50%. Try this math model with a rail system and see how inflexible and costly your system is. Great fortunes have been lost on incorrect assumptions. If you assumed wrong on buses, you can easily sell the excess buses, but with trains, your biggest asset is you roadway, rails, and stations. Selling those aren’t so easy. Just ask the railroads that closed there lines and stations.
All other factors are NOT equal. A bus can take you closer to your point of destination. A bus can change routes with time of day. Multiple sized vehicles, including jitneys, can share the line.
The rest of your garbage presumes a full train or bus. They rarely are. In San Jose California, for example, the light rail system is the LEAST cost effective transportation mode in the nation with the highest cost per passenger mile.
You're full of crap, as usual.
I've stood on the platforms in the highest industrial traffic density areas in the region (such as Tasman Drive), photographing the passengers entering and debarking the trains at peak rush hour. I've never seen more than twenty people on a platform. Usually, it's about three. Considering the cost for the construction of the system, to argue that it represents an efficiency is preposterous.
“Trains/light rail carry far more passengers and require fewer drivers.”
The one they just built between Escondido and Oceanside CA doesn’t cary enough passengers to pay the help let alone the fuel, maintainance and never will return a cent of the investment.
If it gets 4 people per trip it’s been mobbed!!!
No one but an illegal or welfare case would ever waste their time on the thing!
Light rail goes in fixed limited locations. Buses are flexible and can be rerouted as transit patterns change.