Sure, if you only consider that one aspect. But I thought we tried to move past such singular economics, rather than just replacing profit with resource efficiency. It’s much more complex than that of course.
To consider all expect, just having only a bus network to rely on is also bad. Less options for people to choose from and still more at mercy of traffic conditions than tram networks even assuming the city has dedicated bus lanes.
In terms of pollution, they are also worse since electric buses are still rare and still a lot less convenient than electrified tram networks. All of these disadvantages grow even more when compared to metro trains and subways.
The reason buses are used over tram networks and metros are route flexibility, lower upfront cost and less space required for facilities. At least, that’s what I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe you can add more advantages bus networks provide over rail network to support your position better.
I mean, there are so many particularities in each place, it’s just too simplistic to discard them. What does the existing infrastructure look like and how can we use it best? How expensive would it be to install a different system, where does the money come from, and what else can the city not afford for that?
Another interesting case would be Kyoto, which relies mostly on buses although there are some train routes. But when they built their subways, there were a lot of construction delays because workers found ancient objects, had to call some archaeologists etc. So the city gave up after only 2 lines. Above-ground trains are also relatively rare although they exist. But you would have the same issue, existing buildings and cultural heritage.
It’s just a complex issue. Both can be totally viable solutions, depending on context and implementation. My point is that it’s kind of dumb to start raging against buses now as we have different issues.
Who is raging against buses, though? As you said, there are circumstances where its not practical to have both, but that still doesn’t make bus only network better than having a mixed network. We’re speaking relatively here, not in absolutes. When I say one is better, it doesn’t mean the other is bad.
Buses are useful because they can change based upon demand. If s neighborhood grows, more buses can be added. If a neighborhood shrinks, you can remove buses.
For larger cities buses just don’t have enough capacity to be a good transit system. They do have their place in smaller cities and as a complement to a tram/metro for connections where the demand isn’t as high.
I don’t say trams are bad, but it’s just dumb that OP seems to demonize busses that are totally fine solutions in some contexts. If you plan a new city SimCity style, sure, go for trains first. But real cities are more difficult and have a history, and it rarely makes sense to throw all of that overboard just to have the most efficient (currently) solution
In the city where I live, I exclusively use trams. I avoid buses at all costs and only use them as a desperate last resort. Reason is because trams drive way nicer, in my opinion, than buses. Because in a full bus, standing and being whiplashed from wall to wall is unpleasant, especially with a shopping bag or a case or something else in your hand.
Do we hate buses now?
No, it’s just that on a ranking of resource efficiency, railway systems are certainly better than buses.
Sure, if you only consider that one aspect. But I thought we tried to move past such singular economics, rather than just replacing profit with resource efficiency. It’s much more complex than that of course.
To consider all expect, just having only a bus network to rely on is also bad. Less options for people to choose from and still more at mercy of traffic conditions than tram networks even assuming the city has dedicated bus lanes.
In terms of pollution, they are also worse since electric buses are still rare and still a lot less convenient than electrified tram networks. All of these disadvantages grow even more when compared to metro trains and subways.
The reason buses are used over tram networks and metros are route flexibility, lower upfront cost and less space required for facilities. At least, that’s what I can think of off the top of my head. Maybe you can add more advantages bus networks provide over rail network to support your position better.
I mean, there are so many particularities in each place, it’s just too simplistic to discard them. What does the existing infrastructure look like and how can we use it best? How expensive would it be to install a different system, where does the money come from, and what else can the city not afford for that?
Another interesting case would be Kyoto, which relies mostly on buses although there are some train routes. But when they built their subways, there were a lot of construction delays because workers found ancient objects, had to call some archaeologists etc. So the city gave up after only 2 lines. Above-ground trains are also relatively rare although they exist. But you would have the same issue, existing buildings and cultural heritage.
It’s just a complex issue. Both can be totally viable solutions, depending on context and implementation. My point is that it’s kind of dumb to start raging against buses now as we have different issues.
Who is raging against buses, though? As you said, there are circumstances where its not practical to have both, but that still doesn’t make bus only network better than having a mixed network. We’re speaking relatively here, not in absolutes. When I say one is better, it doesn’t mean the other is bad.
The post/OP did, that’s why I commented so you commented so I commented so you commented so I commented so you commented and here I am, commenting
I double checked and still don’t see the rage you’re referring to.
Buses are useful because they can change based upon demand. If s neighborhood grows, more buses can be added. If a neighborhood shrinks, you can remove buses.
For larger cities buses just don’t have enough capacity to be a good transit system. They do have their place in smaller cities and as a complement to a tram/metro for connections where the demand isn’t as high.
I don’t say trams are bad, but it’s just dumb that OP seems to demonize busses that are totally fine solutions in some contexts. If you plan a new city SimCity style, sure, go for trains first. But real cities are more difficult and have a history, and it rarely makes sense to throw all of that overboard just to have the most efficient (currently) solution
In the city where I live, I exclusively use trams. I avoid buses at all costs and only use them as a desperate last resort. Reason is because trams drive way nicer, in my opinion, than buses. Because in a full bus, standing and being whiplashed from wall to wall is unpleasant, especially with a shopping bag or a case or something else in your hand.