Buses the Way of the Future, Says Confused British Government
Britian plans on replacing underutilized and defunt rail lines with dedicated bus lanes, including many outfitted with bus guideways, reports The Times. The article begins with one of the more amusing sentences I've read:
Tracks on branch railway lines are to be torn up and replaced with concrete channels, under plans to attract people out of cars by replacing trains with buses.
There's so much wrong with the statement that it's almost not worth the effort. We've established, time and time again, that bus lines do not draw the same amount of riders as rail lines, largely due to issues of comfort, speed, and the general mentality around bus use. And while BRT -- which is what, in effect, these new lines would be -- takes some steps to get around the problem, it doesn't solve many of the larger problems. The fact that these would be guideway-operated trains, meaning drivers wouldn't need to steer, seems largely irrelevant, as drivers would still be needed, so there would be no reduction in labor cost.
And you know you're in trouble when your chief spokesman has this to say:
"Bob Menzies, the head of the Cambridge busway project, said that the busway would not need any operating subsidy."
Can anyone else see people looking back in fifty years at this decision the same way they look back at the decisions to replace streetcar lines with bus lines all over the U.S.?
Post Author:
amg | 08:35 AM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
Replacing trains with buses is a synonym for closures. Guided busways are one of those stupid ideas that need to be strangled at birth.
Replacing the Severn Beach line would be a disastrous failure, because it will be exchanging the last few miles of track shared with main line trains with crowded city streets.
Looking at the article again, the Cambridge/St Ives and Dunstable schemes have been on the agenda for years, but keep getting blocked be those who correctly identify it as a cheap and nasty solution.
I think any idea that we're on the brink of large scale replacement of trains by buses is wishful thinking on behalf of The Times (which, like many newspapers, is heavily dependent on advertising from the motor industry).
I have a friend who works at a transit agency in Orange County, CA and though he is personally a huge fan of rail, the capital outlay is just too huge. Sure, it might pay for itself, it might be cheaper in some other long term form of analysis, but $2bill is just too damn big to come by.
While I want more rail, i can empathize with these city planners who have their hands and budgets tied.
