You’ll never get it.
how many people will make the brt choice over the busses now? would extra busses be far less expensive and retain flexibility if desires change? and if its a few people is it worth tearing up the road and all the additional stuff to be built for a likely small increase in ridership?
1 Like
if this guy isnt mis-analyizing things we should add more roads at a greater level than transit modes?
1 Like
We build infrastructure for the future, not the past. And the past – when we didn’t care about carbon footprints or sprawl or economic justice – is not a good guide to how we should shape our future.
9 Likes
Using this logic, we would all still be using the horse and buggy. No need to pave roads for the horseless carriage, because no one is using them.
That makes zero sense. Automobiles ran on poorly maintained dirt roads for decades. Concept proven then paved roads.
1 Like
By your logic, then, doesn’t it make sense to give rail and BRT a chance?
Cars needed almost 50 years to make that transition you’re talking about (the Ford Model T came out in 1908 and the Interstate highway system got signed into law 48 years later). You might think that evolution was thanks to the free market, but it turns out intentional government intervention did a lot of that heavy lifting. Dirt paths were replaced by paved roads thanks to activists and lobbyists in the Good Roads Movement, which itself was built on top of our country’s earlier works on a national road system since the 1830s, and drivers became legally prioritized on roads over everyone else because of intense lobbying from the auto industry.
All of that means the concept of a car-centric life needed decades of public investment to prove and perfect so that it works well enough for a big chunk of people in our area. And you’re a free market guy: if one option worked, why can’t we try again, and potentially let people have the freedom to choose?
20 Likes
Thanks - I was going to respond, but you summed it up much better than I could have.
3 Likes
I’m just not a believer that rail is a proven concept in low density cities. North American rail public transit costs are prohibitively high. These projects do not cost nearly as much in Europe or Asia per mile.
3 Likes
Okay, that is a fair opinion (and thank you for being clear about that and not deflecting with “what about”-isms).
And you’re right, rail is more costly in America. …but the nonpartisan Eno Center for Transportation found that it’s because inefficiencies in “little” management details like project governance and process standardization add up, while countries and projects that were governed more smoothly were built faster and more cheaply.
This means, with citizen pressure, we could actually rail projects cheaper if we give it a chance, all without being at the mercy of an uncaring market.
And because this is the BRT thread (and NOT a thread about rail!), even the conservative Reason Foundation thinks BRT is a cost-effective, useful, and attractive alternative to building trains or sticking to regular buses:
…but we can’t even try to see if these changes work or are meaningful if we don’t give them a shot. And the truth is that we’ve never tried this in the Triangle before, with the particular kinds of growth, decentralized geography, and post-Covid work patterns that are happening today.
So why not give it a chance?
9 Likes
For those who want to participate in a pro suburban, car forward community, may I suggest NewGeography? You might love it over there.
Good blog. Actually been reading that for several years and does show the counter arguments to the mainlined urbanists out there.
Well it’s 2023, the waiting game for New Bern BRT construction starts now. $20 says it’s delayed an ungodly amount of time.
This man is guaranteed to win $20!!! 
1 Like
Sure hope not, there are deadlines when federal funding is involved.
Bet $20 hit me on cashapp GavinlikestoEarn
1 Like
11 Likes
$77m covers the studies, right?
7 Likes
The studies are funded in the FY 2023 Wake Transit Work Plan. The $77 million should be for actual construction (not sure if that would include the articulated buses needed for this service).
If this project makes it into the new Federal budget - we’ll be two lines funded, two to go!
13 Likes
CIGs are for construction.
6 Likes