I actually couldn’t find a single example of a light rail system in the entire United States which needs the capacity of light rail and couldn’t get by with buses.
Could it be that light rail is a form of future proofing for population growth? My understanding is that a lot of light rail is more recent development, but I can be wrong.
Yea, I think it’s really difficult to predict how many riders you’ll get long term. I think someone that agrees fully with this article would probably say you can do BRT now for cheaper, and do LRT when the demand exists later.
I tend to think that rail will probably attract more riders over time than buses do, and have more ridership growth. But I don’t have evidence for that. I think you’d need a long-term study to really establish that. If you’re operating from what we currently know and can show evidence for, I think this article makes a lot of compelling points I can’t really disprove.
But I’d you do BRT now and then light rail later, you will have spent more having to have done both. Projecting ridership, population shifts, revenue, maintenance, and operating costs would almost certainly gone into the planning.
At least for the STL Green Line example here, the choice of LRT over BRT seems to have less to do with that kind of analysis and more to do with the source of the income. A lot of the money was raised on the promise of a N/S rail, and that’s made it difficult to advocate for anything else regardless of metrics. Some of the money is also grants specifically earmarked for rail. Don’t know if that applies everywhere. I think the flashiness of rail makes it easier to raise revenue for, regardless of if its the right decision for the situation.
Yea, I think it’s really difficult to predict how many riders you’ll get long term. I think someone that agrees fully with this article would probably say you can do BRT now for cheaper, and do LRT when the demand exists later.
I tend to think that rail will probably attract more riders over time than buses do, and have more ridership growth. But I don’t have evidence for that. I think you’d need a long-term study to really establish that. If you’re operating from what we currently know and can show evidence for, I think this article makes a lot of compelling points I can’t really disprove.
But I’d you do BRT now and then light rail later, you will have spent more having to have done both. Projecting ridership, population shifts, revenue, maintenance, and operating costs would almost certainly gone into the planning.
At least for the STL Green Line example here, the choice of LRT over BRT seems to have less to do with that kind of analysis and more to do with the source of the income. A lot of the money was raised on the promise of a N/S rail, and that’s made it difficult to advocate for anything else regardless of metrics. Some of the money is also grants specifically earmarked for rail. Don’t know if that applies everywhere. I think the flashiness of rail makes it easier to raise revenue for, regardless of if its the right decision for the situation.