Typically? Based on what? Cleveland's HealthLine, which has ZERO signal pre-emption? Or Los Angeles's MetroRapid, which doesn't have dedicated lanes for its entire route? Or maybe Boston's Silver Line, which is notorious for getting stuck in traffic, and makes people along its route pine for the [[now-demolished) Orange Line El. There are only a handful of bus routes in the United States recognized as bus "rapid" transit, and they all vary wildly in their operating characteristics. So I'm glad that you're smart enough to generalize and establish trends about wildly different systems. Never mind that the cheapo Sexybus system proposed for Detroit wouldn't be able to afford ANY of the things you mention, based on the proposed capital budgets.
And where do you get your cost numbers? Hell, I'd be surprised if you ever rode a school bus, let alone bus "rapid" transit.
Okay, you first. Come to Cleveland and tell me that the [[average) 12 mph Euclid Avenue Sexybus is just as fast as the Red Line rail. But maybe while you summon your courage to *gasp* take public transit, you can tell us why Ottawa is spending millions of dollars to replace their amazing bus rapid transit system with rail, or why Los Angeles is extending its subway network, or why even BRT Poster Child: Curitiba, Brazil, is building a subway.BRT can be fast and inexpensive, and is much more similar to light rail than to local bus service.
So the Michigan Road Builders Association doesn't exist?And what on earth is the "road lobby"?
Right. And Michigan counties and localities are flat-broke. So why not get federal transit money to repave the major [[8-to-10-lane monstrosity) roads?BRT wouldn't benefit any such lobby any more than light rail. Road improvements in Michigan are almost entirely covered by counties and localities, so if there's some new road being built in boondock township [[which is rare these days, BTW), the township and county are paying the bill.
But I'm wasting my time. You've demonstrated time-and-again that you're a shill for the status-quo, not the least bit interested in facts, analysis, or empirical evidence.
Bookmarks