Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Is there any New South Wales transit experts around? I visited Sydney recently and was floored how amazing transit is in a country that apparently funds it properly.

Highlights:
"Orca" cards can be prepaid or registered and become your one stop shop for all transit in the area. Need to cross Sydney Harbor to get to Taronga Zoo? tap your card on the nearest bus to the central station, use that station to go to the docks, ride the ferry, get on the bus up the hill to the top, each time a computer going "oh you were just on that transit length, you get a transfer discount"

Near as I can tell, even with the distant suburbs you can get around JUST by transit, you do not need to own a car in the wider Sydney area.

The system is well staffed with both security and maintenance, it's almost as if someone thinks freedom of travel helps an economy and it's worth doing well.

I didn't see any roads even in the suburbs that were in the condition of the typical road in America, I thought we did a decent job and we do(did) but there's another level of infrastructure maintenance where you keep it going nice long before it really actually starts to affect function.

But all I know of it is from a two week trip and being a city worker who would notice this kind of thing explicitly (council worker for you Aussies)

Anyone out there able to give more insight into this infrastructure strip tease?

# ¿ Apr 3, 2016 21:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 09:27

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Environmental impact also covers noise pollution and SWM (storm water management) so that in the future we build less and less objectionable urban blights and roads don't flood or freeze easily.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2016 21:45

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Curvature of Earth posted:

I can't speak for why BRT didn't work in Chicago.

I can post pictures of the TransMilenio BRT, though. It's pretty spiffin'.

The TransMilenio BRT in Bogota, Colombia is about as far as you can push the concept of BRT.

The buses they use are gigantic. What you see here is a bi-articulated bus, capable of holding 260 passengers. They're pushing the size limit of what can feasibly fit on most roads.

Here's a more distant shot of a BRT station:

You can see the bus lanes are grade-separated. (Well, sort of. There's a very obvious curb, at least.)

Notice how the bus lanes expand from one lane per direction to two near the stations. This is specifically to allow buses to skip stations without getting stuck behind buses that aren't skipping a station. Stations are also in the middle of the road, so buses don't have to waste time pulling over to the curb, and are raised to match the buses' floor height, so handicapped riders can board without needing slow, expensive lifts. Like a subway, fares are paid before boarding, and passengers can enter or exit from any of the doors along the side. Good BRT also gives buses signal priority, so buses rarely hit red lights, though TransMilenio happens to lack that particular feature.

They also run a shitload of buses. Buses can run tighter headways than the barreling tanks in subways�as low as 13 seconds in TransMileno.

All these features combined allow TransMileno's BRT system to handle an average of 35,000 PPHPD (passengers per hour per direction, which is a standard way of measuring the throughput of a transit system). This is a massive number�light rail, by comparison, has a theoretical limit of somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 PPHPD (depending on who you ask) while subways have a theoretical limit of somewhere around 50,000 to 70,000 (again, depending on who you ask). Most light rail and subways only manage half those numbers in practice.

As that paper I linked to above states, there are only specific circumstances where light rail is a better choice than BRT. (e.g. No space for four dedicated bus lanes, capacity demands of less than 20,000 PPHPD, and implicitly, possessing the bucketloads of money needed to build a good light rail system.) But cities are reluctant to build BRT because they see rail as inherently sexy and buses as icky. (Which is also the same reason American cities are trying to build mixed-traffic streetcars that are slower than buses�lovely rail systems still look cool and are an easier sell than a good bus system.)

This made me realize busses are actually a really good viable solution, IF you builds their support right.

But most people just want to throw them into regular traffic or convert existing roads, causing more disruption of passenger movement than actually relieving congestion.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2016 15:22

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

I find myself absent mindedly wondering that if we go full vehicle automation with metropolitan based traffic control if it couldn't give the US a unique and different model to the stuff that has been successful elsewhere. The main advantage possible I can see from the people mover model is cargo delivery could also be retrofitted into the system where a transport vehicle just pulls up and delivers a standardized package to a building.

Of course this begs the question which Americans value more, the experience of driving or cheap consumer goods.

I'm not prepared to bet on either.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 19:11

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

My Imaginary GF posted:

Who gives a poo poo, when your city has a revenue stream which it can use to fund greenscaping and public transit infrastructure?

Lol, what revenue streams? The ones they sold to private enterprise for 75 years?

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 15:45

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Recently I'm watching a nearby city vote a parks bond down because "traffic is bad and we need to invest in infrastructure instead" and then also squawking that the city needs to fix it, especially the two state owned roads that go through town "without raising our taxes".

This is a city with a total operating budget of about 13.5 million a year. :psyduck:

For perspective, the average basic road project of " add sidewalks, resurface, underground utility polls, maintain proper water penetration facilities and add a median to a quarter mile stretch of road" is around $20 million

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 17:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 09:27

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

My Imaginary GF posted:

Its a shitload easier to get laid when you can just walk back to your place while drunk, rather than risking DUI. Why the gently caress would you ever wanna DUI?

I don't think sobriety is the first issue here.

Content: most traffic plans I've seen regionally seem to plan for the next 30 years out, isn't this a bit uh.. presumptuous? Tech has changed an insane amount in the past 30 just with road surfacing equipment.

# ¿ May 10, 2016 00:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding