|
|
|
|
|
by bobthepanda
2744 days ago
|
|
It is worth noting that part of the reason it was so cheap was because the government had already purchased the required land for a freeway. Land acquisition, as many infrastructure projects like CAHSR or Texas Central can attest to, is easily some of the most costly and risky part of these projects, even if you do decide to use eminent domain. BRT has notable disadvantages; buses can move from side to side unlike rail, so the tunnels and bridges have to be bigger or use proprietary guided technology like this one. In general road surfaces wear away much faster than rails. And rail vehicles perform much better once you factor in labor costs. BRT is useful in some cases, like where there is no dominant trunk line and buses can leave the roadway to serve different destinations; but eventually the common trunk gains enough critical mass and you convert to light rail anyways, as Seattle and Ottawa have discovered, and LA is considering for the Orange Line BRT. |
|
Chicago owned all of the land used for the Loop link and it still cost $41 million, and has little of the benefits of actual BRT.
People here get incredibly upset when any road diet is discussed. Our politicians rarely ride public transit, and laws and engineering guidelines prevent projects which would reduce the volume of traffic carried. It's absurd.