Comment by bluGill
1 day ago
The problems with trains are well known and they are not addressing them. There might be unknown problems an well, but the things they are talking about have already been tried and failed for reasons they don't seem to be aware of.
Innovation should require some knowlegde of what is already done - otherwise you invent square wheels.
They are addressing the problem of cost by 1) using BEVs to reduce overhead wire cost, 2) using tighter turn radii to reduce retrofitting needs, and 3) reducing the depth needed to avoid costly subservice infrastructure disruption
There is no evidence that wires are expensive. There is evidence that wires are cheaper if you are running frequent service.
> There is evidence that wires are cheaper if you are running frequent service.
Given the rapid progress in battery and battery charging tech, I doubt that evidence still applies today.
Also, they may be cheaper in the long run but require more up-front investment. Depending on the interest rate, that can swing the answer to the ”what’s cheaper?” question
They're addressing one problem, and one problem only.
Adding a bus line isn't sexy, even bus rapid transit (BRT) sounds like a wet fart. They work, they can work extremely well, but nobody gets excited about it.
This thing is just like a monorail; something worse than a bus but that sounds sexier.
Interestingly, in public policy, how sexy something sounds tends to be directly proportional to how much the public is willing to spend. It's often easier to get 10-100x the money of a bus for a rail link.
CVRT is proposed to replace existing BRT for cost, environmental, and safety reasons.
What is CVRT? I'm getting "Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)" and though that sounds like it would be cheaper, more environmentally friendly, and safer than a bus ;) I doubt it's what you're talking about.
1 reply →