Comment by Veratyr
9 years ago
> But what if busses operated on their own dedicated network?
But if you're building a dedicated network in a major city, why on earth would you limit it to buses? Even with a dedicated network, I don't believe buses can be as fast, comfortable or quiet as rail.
I spent a lot of time in Melbourne, Australia and the trams there are fantastic. You can barely hear them when they're operating so they do a lot to decrease noise, they have a ton of standing room and are quite long, so they can carry a lot of people and I don't believe a bus can come close to the comfort of rail.
Rail fails in a serious earthquake. Large infrastructure can take years to return to operation after disasters.
Even buses are useless during/after disasters in my experience (avoiding legal liability, lack flexibility to mitigate problems, inability to publish changes etc).
Rail fails in a serious earthquake.
Yes, but so do roads. Tunnels especially!
http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/91972268/government-confirms-8...
Maybe because it's cheaper? For example, I don't think India can afford to simultaneously build metro systems that cover all cities, and cover a good enough area of each city. Or, if we can afford it, the govt wouldn't consider spending $100 billion+ the best use of the money. Bus is much more doable.
Trams are more expensive than buses. They have removed tram networks on many cities in Europe in favour of cheap diesel buses but slowly now some are getting back.
Only a visitor so don't know the details, but plenty of Brisbane's tunnels seem to be for buses only...
We have tunnels and a couple of seperate motorways designed soecifically for buses. Which is great for getting from southern suburbs to the city. But anything off the main line can take an extra half hour.