Comment by theluketaylor
7 days ago
Bus lifespan is 15-20 years max and needs tons of maintenance during that time. Trains last 40 years and go 100,000 miles+ between failures.
Trains are a bigger upfront investment, but are cheaper in the long run, especially once capacity is factored in. You need a lot of busses to equal moderate sized trains.
Busses have their place, but not as the backbone for rapid transit in even moderate sized urban areas.
BRT trades CAPX for OPEX. In Latin America where BRT is hugely successful capital is expensive and labour is cheap, so hiring a ton of drivers is easy. In high labour costs markets like the US, Canada, and Europe BRT falls apart. It's often all transit agencies think they can get funding and support for so it's pushed, but it's way too easy to cut back BRT attributes like signal priority, dedicated lanes, and all door boarding to end up with just a bus with a fancy livery.
I'm sure it differs by metro area, but somehow "dollar vans" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_vans_in_the_New_York_me...) can be profitable in NYC, but most US public transit systems are huge money losers.
It's quite easy to make a profit from a bus system that operates in peak commuter hours on peak commuter routes. It's virtually impossible to make a profit from one that has a public service obligation.