Few American Cities Need Busways

The Antiplanner’s recent visit to Turkey allowed me to observe the Istanbul Metrobus. Buses from several different routes use two dedicated lanes in the median of a freeway for parts of their journeys. The forty-five bus stops on the 31-mile route have overhead walkways allowing patrons to cross the freeways.


An Istanbul Metrobus pulls out of a station.

Most buses are articulated and can comfortably carry at least 100 people. Buses operate as frequently as every 14 seconds in each direction; that’s more than 250 buses per hour. While they operate “only” every two minutes after 1 am, over the course of a 24-hour day, they still manage to run buses an average every 28 seconds over parts of the route. Each bus stop is long enough to serve at least four buses at a time.


Metrobuses operated on the left side so conventional righthand-side doors can access the center stations. Note the four wide doors.

Running 250 buses per hour full of 100 people per bus means each bus lane has a capacity of 25,000 people per hour. That’s not the maximum as dedicated bus lanes should be able to handle a bus every 10 seconds while many buses can carry more than 100 people. Bogota’s bus-rapid transit system, for example, can move 42,000 people per hour.

By comparison, a light-rail car can hold about 150 people, so a city that can run four-car light-rail trains (most cities can only run three) every two minutes (most light-rail systems can only handle trains every three minutes) can move just 18,000 people per hour. Unlike light rail, buses also have the advantage of leaving the dedicated busway and connecting to business centers and neighborhoods that are off the freeway.

In the following years Blanchard searched for new challenges and my link commander levitra found it in his sexual life. With online availability and FDA purchase cheap cialis click here to find out more approval, it is made easy to consume for restricting ED issues in men. There’s easily also been lots of viagra samples online intellectual shame attached to the queries depending on erotic muscle of any man. Rather the brand name and generic impotence drugs medically carries same active chemical ingredient and so has same effect on cialis samples ED as sexual intercourse. If the question is: “When is it appropriate to build light rail?” Then the answer is “never” because buses can move more people, faster, to more places, for less money. Instead, the question cities and transit systems need to ask is, “When is it appropriate to build dedicated busways?” In the United States, the answer to this question is “rarely” because there are few corridors where enough people take transit to justify dedicating this much roadway space to buses.

The Metrobus works in a freeway median strip. How many buses per hour can move on city streets with dedicated bus lanes? Portland’s dedicated bus lanes with staggered bus stops on downtown streets can move more than 160 buses per hour. Portland buses require about 40 seconds to stop and unload and load passengers, but this can be reduced by using pre-pay systems: Curitiba buses need just 15 to 19 seconds at a stop. Notably, when Portland’s bus mall was under construction, TriMet projected that it would eventually be able to run 260 buses per hour, about the same as the Istanbul Metrobusway.

In short, dedicated bus lanes can move a lot of people, far more than would use transit in any American city outside of New York. The 31-mile Istanbul Metrobus corridor moves 800,000 people per day. That’s more than the entire 142-mile Chicago Transit Authority heavy-rail network; more than the Boston T’s 93 miles of light-rail and heavy-rail lines combined; nearly twice as many as the entire 134-mile BART system; and almost as many as the 135-mile Washington DC Metrorail system. No single light-rail line in America comes close to carrying 10 percent as many people as the Metrobus; the most heavily-used light-rail systems–Boston’s 39 miles (four lines) and Los Angeles’ 68 miles (also four lines)–carry only about a quarter as many people as the Metrobus.

How many people can a rapid bus system move without dedicated bus lanes? That depends on how much of a shared lane you are willing to devote to buses. A typical freeway lane can move about 2,000 cars per hour, while an arterial street can move about half that many. Buses, of course, take more room than cars, but if half the road space is given to buses, they should be able to easily move 100 buses per hour plus 500 cars per hour on streets and 1,000 on freeways. Of course, streets will need to devote parking strips to buses and freeways may need specially constructed bus stops.

If a bus-rapid transit on shared lanes can move 40 percent as many people as on dedicated lanes, that’s still 10,000 to 16,000 people per hour, more than the capacity of any light-rail line in America and far more than the actual use of those lines. In other words, there is not a single light-rail corridor in America, and probably very few heavy-rail corridors outside of New York City, where we could justify the expense of building dedicated bus lanes, much less a rail line.

Despite this, cities like Albuquerque, Spokane, and many more want to dedicate streets to bus-rapid transit. The Antiplanner blames Congress for this: the Small Starts program offers cities up to $75 million if they are willing to increase congestion by dedicating streets to a few buses. None of the Small Starts projects will use those streets to anywhere near their capacity, and the unused space will be wasted when it could have been shared with other vehicles.

Unlike all dedicated guideways, buses on shared roadways are scalable, meaning they cost about the same per passenger whether the demand is 40 people per hour or 40,000. While some fret that buses on shared roadways will get stuck in traffic, I have yet to see an explanation for why transit users are so morally superior that they, unlikely everyone else, deserve to avoid traffic. The money that some would spend building dedicated transitways should instead be spent on things that will relieve congestion for everyone.

Busways in Istanbul, Bogota, and other cities show that rail transit is a waste of money in almost every American city. But, despite the claims of some bus-rapid transit snobs, bus-rapid transit on dedicated lanes is also usually a waste. By sharing road space with cars, trucks, bicycles, and other vehicles, the best transit systems are by far the most cost effective.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

37 Responses to Few American Cities Need Busways

  1. alexfrancisburchard says:

    Istanbul’s Metrobus busses carry around 200 people per bus. (I rode it this morning actually, and frequently ride it as I live next to it). Metrobus is WOEFULLY inadequate for Istanbul, we need a subway on that route yesterday. Istanbul subways can carry 80,000/direction/hour, metrobus is around 52,000.

    And for the same reason you don’t call a freeway that’s only at capacity at rush hour a failure, saying that light rail in the U.S. is unneeded because its not 100% full all day long is Bull. Seattle for example, is now carrying 60-80,000 people per day on its 18 mile long light rail line, it absolutely needs that capacity at rush hour. 60-70,000 people per day also use the transit tunnel(most of whom use it at rush hour), a bus/train exclusive tunnel under the city, with connecting bus-exclusive roads to the east and south. Those roads and the tunnel are absolutely vital to the smooth operation of the city. Another many thousand (I don’t know how many) use the bus only 3rd avenue, and the bus lanes on second avenue. (There’s so many busses on those streets its insane, they feel like metrobus, just with the busses having all different destinations, and most of them only running at rush hour).

    Anyways, point being, many of these light rail systems are close to capacity at Rush Hour, which is the measurement that matters as to wether or not they’re built to an adequate capacity. Don’t be so deliberately either obtuse or misleading!

  2. alexfrancisburchard says:

    Oh, and let me ask you this, Do you SERIOUSLY think that paying 15 bus drivers to move 3000 people is cheaper than paying 1 train driver, for 50 years? I’m pretty sure the difference in not needing to pay as many drivers, hell the new lines are driverless, paying 0 drivers(subway) is definitely cheaper than paying 15 bus drivers(metrobus) to move 3000 people (8 car trains here can carry that many people). I’m pretty sure the savings in not needing to pay a thousand drivers for 50 years will make up the difference in construction cost.

  3. Frank says:

    “Seattle for example, is now carrying 60-80,000 people per day on its 18 mile long light rail line”

    Your number are high. Average daily ridership is in the upper 50s according to Sound Transit’s own numbers. Numbers are higher thanks to college students, who don’t even come close to paying the full cost of their rides. People are taking lightrail to the Mariners games, particularly opening day, and it caused another spike. (Now that the M’s are doing well, the band wagon is filling.) The Viaduct being closed for several weeks will also inflate the numbers temporarily. The last full-year ridership numbers come from 2015, when average daily ridership was only 35k, and Seattle’s lightrail missed ridership projections for years.

    Even if lightrail in Seattle gains ridership, it doesn’t change the fact that it fails cost/benefit analysis, that rail is an obsolete form of transportation, and that buses are more efficient and flexible.

  4. alexfrancisburchard says:

    Yet Seattle’s light rail is cheaper per passenger carried than the bus as of the 4th quarter last year. Rail is not at all an obsolete form of transportation, and the city I now live in very much proves that. The subways here could not be replaced by busses for less money. No way, no how. Despite the high cost of building a subway, I’m sure that over 50 years its cheaper than running a busway. Likewise in Seattle, I’m pretty sure over the next 50 years it will be the same story, the rail system will pay for itself in lower operating costs and increased property taxes spurred along its route.

  5. LazyReader says:

    Now that the Chicago “L” is falling apart faster than a sandcastle in the surf attempts to repair it are flailing, Bus Rapid transit is being touted as a moderate measure alternative. Rail supporters have dreams but no reality. Only 18,700 of 350,000 miles of rail lines built in the United States actually receive significant federal subsidies. Adding new federal subsidies at a time of massive federal budget deficits is not a good idea. Chicago’s problems mirror other rust belt cities in the midwest and northeast. Chicago has lost an incredible 1.1 million people between 1950 and 2015. They didn’t move far, the Chicago metro area continues to add 100K a year with no problem. As much as people don’t want to hear this, Chicago continues to be a very segregated city. As African Americans moved into neighborhoods on the south and west sides, the whites moved away. The rust belt jobs in the steel industry, meat packing, paint – lumber – construction, those jobs were evaporating so there was no employment. The mayor (Daley father and Daley son) had an iron fist that ran the most well oiled machine in the country. As long as enough people ‘got theirs everything ran smoothly. But when you lose 1 million people, you do no preventive maintenance on your infrastructure (streets, sewers, water, gas, electric) you bring in zero hi tech – forward thinking jobs, and you promise all of your army of supporters fat pensions when they retire, sooner or later you have to pay for all of these things. Well, that time is now and I wish Rahm Emmanuel luck, he knew exactly the Titanic he was inheriting.

  6. alexfrancisburchard,

    Thanks for your insights re: Metrobus. But do you seriously think that the driver is the only cost of transit? Rail transit has huge maintenance costs, far greater than for buses, even with busways (but my argument is few corridors in the United States need busways, much less rail).

  7. alexfrancisburchard says:

    No, the driver is not the only cost, but in most transit agencies, its the biggest. Also fuel for busses is more expensive than trains. Sure they have maintenance costs, but a proper subway costs $1.10/passenger to move people, busses usually cost $3-8 to move a passenger on their commute. + Busses need to be outright replaced every 10 years in most cases, trains last 40. There’s a whole lot of differences and such, but rail systems move people more quickly, smoothly, efficiently, and cheaply (over the long term, if you’re looking for short term gains, sure busses are great, but in the long term it pays off to build a rail line).

  8. aloysius9999 says:

    Diversity coordinators cost far more bus or train drivers.

    Seriously, bus or train drivers costs are a drop in the bucket compared to administrative or indirect labor costs (HR, finance, public relations, lobbying) at most public organizations. Lean and mean and tax payer supported agencies are seldom seen in the same sentence.

  9. metrosucks says:

    You guys should take a moment to google his name before engaging him. He’s a planner or some sort of serious government planning advocate. He’s spewing nothing but lies here. Unlike the little turd alex, Frank and I actually live in the Seattle area. We see the empty toy train platforms from the airport all the way to the extravagant, and empty, Mt Baker station. The dozens of subsidized high density housing complexes along Rainier. The fact that the transit tunnel portion of the toy train’s line carries more people because Metro and Sound Transit funnel all buses to transfers to the toy train, a classic scam to boost rail ridership.

    Despite the high cost of building a subway, I’m sure that over 50 years its cheaper than running a busway

    This is all lying planners and their advocates have left. They don’t even make up data any more, they just say, Oh, I’m ‘pretty sure’ this will all work out.

    Yet Seattle’s light rail is cheaper per passenger carried than the bus as of the 4th quarter last year.

    Cherry picking that doesn’t factor in the enormous capital costs of Seattle’s toy train system. Classic lying from a pro-train planner.

    I’m pretty sure the savings in not needing to pay a thousand drivers for 50 years will make up the difference in construction cost.

    Oh boy, Frank. He’s “pretty sure”! Let’s “invest” half a billion a mile in more toy train tunnels because little turd alex over on the other side of the world is “pretty sure” it will all work out in 50 years when he will probably not even be alive.

  10. alexfrancisburchard says:

    I was born in Seattle, Raised in Kent, and spend at least a month every year there now. I’m pretty familiar with the train and bus system since I rely on it when I’m home.

    The train’s operating costs have been falling per passenger, thus saying as of the 4th quarter last year isn’t so much cherrypicking, its the point where the trend crossed the threshold, which it will likely stay below from now on (especially since the line nearly doubled in ridership with few added expenses!)

  11. Frank says:

    Alex, what is the cost per passenger mile and per trip for Seattle’s light rail, including initial capital outlay, forcasted capital improvement (which will likely be deferred and deferred) , and current operating costs? Please provide a source.

    Since you lived in Seattle, you know that the light rail replaced a bus to the airport that took less time than LRT and even dropped people off right at the terminal. That LRT system was supposed to have 105,000 boardings by 2010 and still hasn’t even gotten close to those numbers.

    And here we go again with the foot stomping when a train fetishist is told rail transit is obsolete. Yes, it is obsolete, no matter how much you want to stomp your little foot and pretend otherwise. Obsolete is defined as “no longer in general use; fallen into disuse”; that’s rail transit for you. It is no longer in general use as it is used by a very small minority of the population.

  12. Frank says:

    metrosucks, notice how the newb didn’t even bother addressing the fact that he was called out for inflating Seattle’s LRT ridership numbers. Typical of rail transit fetishists to make stuff up to support their views. You know, like the planners who promised 100k boardings a day by 2010. hahaha

  13. msetty says:

    alexfrancisburchard, I appreciate your logic in responding to the idiot commenters here, but you’re wasting time trying to argue with nasty turds like Metrof—cks and Frank the insane. Watching reruns of Gilligans Island or The Beverly Hillbillies is more worthwhile, and enlightening.

    Metrof—cky, that invitation to a puglistic athletic facility still stands when I next visit the Seattle area. Oh, I forgot, you’re a chickenshit turd.

  14. msetty says:

    alexfrancisburchard, if you want to spend time productively on blogs that actually have adults as opposed to ancient junior highschoolers, try http://www.strongtowns.org orhttp://preservenet.blogspot.com/.

  15. Frank says:

    Michael, I’ve missed your helpful comments here so much.

  16. metrosucks says:

    Frank,

    someone must have dropped a deuce, because the flies are here right on schedule.

  17. Frank says:

    Sometimes flies are good. Even frogs gotta eat.

    Oh, and I really must thank Michael Setty for the memories. “Gilligan’s [sic] Island”

    Showing results for gilligan’s island
    Search instead for gilligans island

    made me think of Three’s [sic] Company

    Brilliant show.

    Michael Setty just needs to come out of the closet and he can live in density for super cheap, yo.

  18. alexfrancisburchard says:

    The LRT system was scaled back due to a couple reasons, one of them being that the people who initially wrote the ballot didn’t know that much about pricing out a transit system so they way overpromised. It was supposed to get to Northgate by now, but hasn’t yet. Meanwhile, after management changed because the initial management was incompetent, they’ve done really well at getting the thing done on the revised budget that wasn’t written by people who don’t know what they’re doing. I’m not gonna say the people in 1996 knew what they were doing, but since ~2000 they found people who do. The University Link Extension came in 200 million under budget and 6 months ahead of schedule, and thusfar has met expectations for how many people would ride a line from the U-district to the Airport (has it met the northgate to airport projections? No, why would you ever measure it by that though? That’s not what it is!)

    So, once we’ve established that yes, the people who started messed up, and gone forward with the people who do know what they’re doing, and factored in the recession(AKA once we consider reality), the light rail line has done really well, and I challenge you to show me a way that 40,000 more people/day could use I-5 and get where they’re going as fast as the light rail passengers do today. 40,000 more people on I-5 would result in 6am-10pm gridlock with no breaks. (I use 40,000 because the old bus carried about 15,000/day, and if we assume the ridership is 55,000/day today (which it’s been bouncing around a bit, mostly above that, but we will see where it settles), then 40,000 is a good assumption of what would be on I-5 otherwise).

    Rail is so obsolete that it is the lifeblood of many cities still. I understand. New York City with 60% of people riding the train, that’s rail being obsolete. San Francisco with 25% of people on the train also shows how obsolete it is. Chicago and D.C. and Boston and Philly too!

    Or lets go to where I live most of the year now, Istanbul. 15 million people in 350 square miles(for the most part) Without rail the city would be impassable. I mean. 5.5 million people every day take the bus, and 1.6 million on rail, but rail is skyrocketing as it gets to more neighborhoods, and I’m pretty sure here that its paid off its construction costs within a couple years of opening. (according to my friends who can read Turkish better than I can). But, with the exception of those on the metrobus (which is woefully inadequate, overcrowded, and needs to be replaced by a train), those busses sit in the world’s worst traffic. When I take a regular citybus back to my neighborhood, I usually get out about a half mile from my neighborhood square and walk the rest of the way because its 3x as fast. All but about two times I’ve taken a cab I’ve regretted it, the bus is as fast as a cab, it just sits in the same traffic the cab does.

    in 2018 a subway line from Mecidiyekoy to Kabatas will open, reducing the 20 minute bus ride in traffic to 6 minutes. The legendary barbaros bulvari (which is actually usually bogazicic koprusu traffic (First bosporus bridge)) traffic? No longer an issue, the train will fly under that like it doesn’t exist.

    At any rate in this city, when I get on trams that come every 30 seconds and are jammed full, and subway trains that are 4 times as big, come every 90 seconds and are even more jammed full, I just don’t see trains as obsolete. My life would be miserable sitting in traffic without them, as would millions of other istanbullus lives.

    Likewise when I’m home in Seattle, find me a 20 minute commute from Kent to Seattle at 7:30 AM. Because that’s how fast the sounder gets me into the city. I’d sit that long going from I-5/I-90 to 4th avenue alone at 7:30 am in a car. And that’s why there’s almost 800 people per train using the sounder, despite its extremely limited schedule. You can’t beat it for price and speed. The region today would not function without the south sounder and light rail. I’ll give you that north sounder is kinda pointless. But south sounder and Link, no way no how. the freeway would be unusable without them, or the city just wouldn’t be able to grow.

  19. Frank says:

    Hire an editor, and do better than paraphrasing news releases. If you can’t supply the evidence you’ve been asked to supply, then stop the regurgitation. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

  20. metrosucks says:

    ^^^^^^^^^^This.

  21. OFP2003 says:

    Talking past each other.
    One says: “Trains are cheaper than busses”
    Another hears: “Trains, the rails they ride on, the purchasing of the land underneath them, the building of the bridges under the rails, the digging of the tunnels to carry the rails, the building of the stations above and below ground, the construction of parking lots and garages near stations, the construction of the maintenance yards at the end of the lines, the construction of the power network of transformers, mains, switches, conduit to power the buses, the purchase of the financial ticketing system to control fares, the computer facility management system, the computer train operating system, and all fire-fighting, public safety (police), infrastructure plus the full, correct recapitalization costs as part of annual budgets and then the costs of operating the system including the power to run the trains, the people to drive them, to operate the stations, to maintain, clean, inspect, the trains and the stations and the track and to track all maintenance, condition, repair, inspections, and to manage, recruit, train, all humans involved….. is cheaper than busses.”
    .

  22. prk166 says:


    Unlike all dedicated guideways, buses on shared roadways are scalable, meaning they cost about the same per passenger whether the demand is 40 people per hour or 40,000. While some fret that buses on shared roadways will get stuck in traffic, I have yet to see an explanation for why transit users are so morally superior that they, unlikely everyone else, deserve to avoid traffic. The money that some would spend building dedicated transitways should instead be spent on things that will relieve congestion for everyone.
    ” ~Anti-planner

    Like with software, we need to design our cities to be improved iteratively. Put in the bus routes, if the usage gets high enough that it needs more of a dedicated space or signaling, then do it. You don’t have to do everything up front.

    And, even better, if the corridor doesn’t grow to meet projections, you’ll have capital down the road to put into the projects that need those improvements.

  23. prk166 says:


    Oh, and let me ask you this, Do you SERIOUSLY think that paying 15 bus drivers to move 3000 people is cheaper than paying 1 train driver, for 50 years?

    When MPLS / STPL’s Metro Transit looked at the Central Corridor which they eventually built light rail on, they found that the up front capital costs for LRT were 3 times higher for rail than BRT. That included dedicated lane, tunnel at the UofM, et al. It was apples to apples.

    For $680 million, you could employ 15 bus drivers for 907 years.

    Labor in the US isn’t cheap. The problem is that as a technology, rail is incredibly resource intensive up front. Anything short of astronomical ridership and it costs far far more than other technologies like buses.

  24. alexfrancisburchard says:

    Well, in reality we’re talking about 260? busses per hour, on a route that takes 1.5 hours ish, so we’re looking at having 390 bus drivers at a time on the road, in each direction. compared to probably 20 metro drivers (or like I said on the new lines, 0)

    So 680 mln/ 780 bus drivers on the road at one time That’s about 12 years of paying the drivers.

    Part of the problem with how we calculate the cost/benefit in the U.S. is that we leave out the growth/property value increases rail brings. In places like Japan the rail system has developmental authority, which is why Japan is one of the only places where rail makes a profit, land-use and transit are tied together, but also, even here, if the transit agencies had control over the land near stations so that they could maximize its proximity benefits to the rail system, we’d have profitable transit systems too, and much nicer cities.

  25. MJ says:

    and I challenge you to show me a way that 40,000 more people/day could use I-5 and get where they’re going as fast as the light rail passengers do today. 40,000 more people on I-5 would result in 6am-10pm gridlock with no breaks.

    What? Did 40,000 more people per day just suddenly materialize in Seattle when LRT was built? No, they didn’t. Those people were already traveling. Unless there has been a noticeable decline in traffic congestion on I-5, you should probably prepare yourself for the possibility that most of those train users were already on buses. Moreover, I-5 is not the only option for north-south travel in Seattle. Many commuters can, and do, use alternate routes that are faster than the 18-mph LRT trains.

  26. alexfrancisburchard says:

    Actually, lets look at maybe a real replacement cost. M7 is going to be 25 km and cost 2.8Bn TL So if we replace metrobus it should cost 5.6 bn TL (50km) but I’ll round up to 6 because you have to cross the bosporus in that project. So we replace metrobus with a driverless subway.

    In order to run Metrobus, I’m going to assume they’re paying 3 shifts of about 800 people with full time wages. (2400 people) And maybe 100 extra drivers for sick days and peak load days and such.

    2500 drivers. So at 2.4 million per driver total, that’s 48,000TL per driver per year for 50 years. Once you factor in inflation, Building a new subway to replace the bus line will entirely be paid for by not having to pay drivers.

    And lets talk fares. Fares on the metrobus today are 3,30TL ish. (its a distance scale) I’m gonna assume the average paid fare is 2,5TL (I have no idea to be honest what it actually is though). 2,5*800,000*365 = 730Mln TL/year. Assuming you use half of that for maintenance/operations every year, you pay off the line in ~20 years. start saving for replacement or expansion for the last 30.

    Obviously things are a little different in the U.S., but I mean, if we’re just talking about the economics of rail and how its “never” warranted according to this article. That’s not true, at all.

  27. alexfrancisburchard says:

    MJ, Seattle has grown by nearly 100,000 people since light rail opened.

  28. MJ says:

    Seattle for example, is now carrying 60-80,000 people per day on its 18 mile long light rail line,

    Not according to current figures.

    Sure they have maintenance costs, but a proper subway costs $1.10/passenger to move people, busses usually cost $3-8 to move a passenger on their commute.

    Perhaps that is possible in an underdeveloped country like Turkey where low worker productivity makes construction labor cheaper and low incomes preclude widespread vehicle ownership, but not in the US, where the average total cost per boarding for heavy rail systems is around $3.60. Of course, that figure is overwhelmingly influenced by NYC, which accounts for about 2/3 of the HR ridership in the US. Non-NYC systems average closer to $5.60.

    Furthermore, these estimates do not account for the cost of the enormous maintenance backlog that many US heavy rail systems have accumulated.

  29. MJ says:

    MJ, Seattle has grown by nearly 100,000 people since light rail opened.

    The city of Seattle has added about 50,000 residents since the 2010 Census. Link opened in 2009, so that is a pretty good approximation. But the notion that all of these residents have the same origin and destination (and route) for their work trip, which is what is implied by suggesting that they would otherwise be on I-5, is preposterous. For example, if some of those residents live and work in or near downtown (which some almost certainly do — I don’t know exactly how many), then there is little chance that their commute would put them on I-5, much less at peak travel times.

  30. metrosucks says:

    All I see from Alex the planner shill is a whole lot of suppositions and “maybe” and “for sure” and so on and so forth. Not even a smidgen of real numbers or analysis.

  31. Frank says:

    Proven lie: “Seattle for example, is now carrying 60-80,000 people per day on its 18 mile long light rail line”

    Proven lie: “Seattle has grown by nearly 100,000 people since light rail opened”

    Another lying train fetishist.

  32. alexfrancisburchard says:

    Frank, if you google Seattle Population it will show you we were at 616K in 2009, and went from 610K in 2010 to 653K in 2013, and its not like things have slowed down in the city, so I think it’s reasonable to say that it hit nearly 700,000 by now – which is ~100,000.

    Or if you consider the county, it’s grown by well over 100,000 people. (1.916Mn in 2009 to 2.044mn in 2013, and it hasn’t shrunk since 2013)

    And downtown employment went up by 27,000 from 2010-2013 http://www.downtownseattle.com/files/reports/2015-DSA-SOD-WEB.pdf
    I think its safe to say that downtown employment is somewhere around +40,000 since 2009.

    As for Link Ridership, weekday ridership is averaging close to 60,000 http://www.soundtransit.org/Rider-Community/Rider-news/university-link-ridership-sprints-out-starting-gates

    I suppose I should have said 50-70K (but there was a spike which sailed over 70K) and I’ve read that since the viaduct closed it spiked the daily ridership up a mile (to something like upper 70 thousands/day.) So when I said 60-80, I was factoring that in, and pretty much, that’s where its averaged. So please, tell me how that’s a lie again.

  33. metrosucks says:

    “Proven lie: “Seattle for example, is now carrying 60-80,000 people per day on its 18 mile long light rail line””

    Indeed. Ridership is at 51800 on weekdays according to April 2016 figures. Bear in mind the figures include the opening of the University extension, which means short term novelty riders, and based on history, ridership will likely go down and not up, at least in the short term.

    “Proven lie: “Seattle has grown by nearly 100,000 people since light rail opened””

    Indeed. In 2009 when Central Link opened, population was just over 600,000. 2015 estimate is 662,000. Not even close, lying rail shill Alex. And we all know you were trying to imply that the city enjoyed 100k new residents due to light rail. That must be why all the stations between the airport and the Mt Baker station are always empty, and most of link’s ridership is from the transit tunnel, where buses transfer thousands of riders onto light rail to inflate its numbers (a typical transit authority scam).

  34. Dave Brough says:

    If the question is: “When is it appropriate to build light rail?” and the answer is “never”, shouldn’t the next question be “Why do cities insist on light rail, regardless?” Especially when an ap has made you obsolete?
    My answer is: “Because when you build light rail, you’ve just extended your job by at least 30 years”.

  35. C. P. Zilliacus says:

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    How many people can a rapid bus system move without dedicated bus lanes? That depends on how much of a shared lane you are willing to devote to buses. A typical freeway lane can move about 2,000 cars per hour, while an arterial street can move about half that many. Buses, of course, take more room than cars, but if half the road space is given to buses, they should be able to easily move 100 buses per hour plus 500 cars per hour on streets and 1,000 on freeways. Of course, streets will need to devote parking strips to buses and freeways may need specially constructed bus stops.

    The better alternative to busways or bus-only lanes is to run the buses on lanes that are managed by tolls appropriately so that they operate at free-flow speeds. That maximizes traffic-carrying capacity and allows the buses to operate at those free-flow speeds.

    Using lanes that are managed by price means that unlike light rail, there is not a right-of-way that transit patrons have to pay for (or, perhaps more to the point, other users of the transportation system have to pay for with transit capital subsidies).

  36. the highwayman says:

    If the question is: “When is it appropriate to build sidewalks?” Then the answer is “never”… :$

  37. vandiver49 says:

    LRT and BRT are both useful, but only insomuch that they are separated from regular traffic. Having them mixed with cars I think reduces there maximum effectiveness. Alex, based upon the maintenance challenges facing Chicago, DC, Philly and NYC, I think you are severely underestimating the lifetime costs of maintaining rail transit infrastructure.

Leave a Reply