Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like the auto-philes are stretching this article like it's Silly Putty. Basically the article says that users preferred the BRT route, but only marginally and in one category, and is being used to claim that people like buses better than light rail in general--the article doesn't support that conclusion. And a BRT route that is mostly on its own right of way except for a short segment is somehow equivalent to a regular non-BRT bus that runs in the street? That's a big stretch--it's pretty obvious that BRT has its own special vehicles with multiple boarding points, is designed for pay in advance rather than PAYE, and a dedicated route (for most if not all of its length) are defining characteristics for BRT, making them a very different animal than most other buses.
And I'm also going to assume that these folks don't ride buses regularly, either. I do, I like them just fine, but people generally tend to prefer rail. It's just consumer preference, but it's inconvenient for the folks who want to play with their putt-putt cars.
The buses seem nicer in Europe for some reason. Quieter, more comfortable, better interiors, even sleeker and more attractive in appearance on the outside. When I was in London I really enjoyed riding on the double decker public buses for example. A world of difference from the harsh noisy ride of the Muni buses in San Francisco. A bus is just a bus right? Maybe. But it makes sense. When public transit is a priority and not just an after thought, you get better funding and a better public transit system. Even the buses are better.
Yeah, consumer preference in Nantes is the rso-called "fake" BRT over light rail as weighted by the analysis. If you weighted it differently, such as weighting the better coverage of the light rail more heavily and comfort and security less heavily, you might have a different outcome. I don't think it draws any larger conclusion that buses are always better than rail. Perhaps other posters could chime in if they do, but it seems more like a strawman argument since you don't like the conclusion.
Preference is really highly individual. You can't really draw a conclusion that because people in Nantes prefer BRT to light rail that people in the US do. Buses are stigmatized in the Americas. Many posters here don't like buses because they think they'll be perceived as a poor but are okay on rail. I don't think that was even a criteria in the evaluation. And it's not just the US. Celebrities on BRT in Brazil is newsworthy for the same reason. That's certainly a factor in preference and one that should at least be considered in developing public policy. It's imo overstated since quite a few BRT and so-called "fake" BRT systems in the US have higher than anticipated ridership. Some people just aren't worried about as perceptions as much and are just happier to have better bus service. It also really depends where you are. LA and Seattle are worlds apart. There's much less too good to ride a bus (or transit in general) mentality in Seattle than LA. Of course, LA also has fairly high transit usage so even there that mentality is far from universal.
Just another demonstration of the phoniness, insincerity and double-standards among the Planned Economy and Political Correctness advocacy:
"What is best suited to my needs, in my neighborhood is, by definition, better and more important than what someone else might want (especially if obtainable via the private sector), so I'll just try to schmooze Big Brother into forcing it on all of us, at taxpayer expense."
Please keep your dreams and your visions out of everybody else's budget!
Just another demonstration of the phoniness, insincerity and double-standards among the Planned Economy and Political Correctness advocacy:
"What is best suited to my needs, in my neighborhood is, by definition, better and more important than what someone else might want (especially if obtainable via the private sector), so I'll just try to schmooze Big Brother into forcing it on all of us, at taxpayer expense."
Please keep your dreams and your visions out of everybody else's budget!
Huh? Please relate your post to the thread topic on hand.
My point us, quite simply, that since all of these amenities can only be provided as part of the public sector, the discussion dissolves into a argument based upon aesthetics, and the taxpayer has to foot the bill. I don't take too much offense at the argument of a need for basic transport, but without the discipline imposed by an open market, there is no incentive to operate efficiently -- only the clamor for a bigger staff and a bigger budget, and all from the public trough.
I don't see how it can be made any clearer than that.
My point us, quite simply, that since all of these amenities can only be provided as part of the public sector, the discussion dissolves into a argument based upon aesthetics, and the taxpayer has to foot the bill. I don't take too much offense at the argument of a need for basic transport, but without the discipline imposed by an open market, there is no incentive to operate efficiently -- only the clamor for a bigger staff and a bigger budget, and all from the public trough.
I don't see how it can be made any clearer than that.
So I take it you would be opposed to taxpayer-funded roads and highway construction?
I doubt it considering: "I don't take too much offense at the argument of a need for basic transport,"
He's probably just against toy trains when buses would provide more cost-effective and equally good transportation as fancy toy trains and doesn't see much reason to build rail where there isn't sufficient ridership to justify its higher costs. And I'd agree. "Because I'm too good to ride a bus" ranks pretty low on my justifications for spending way more money meter.
I doubt it considering: "I don't take too much offense at the argument of a need for basic transport,"
You forgot the second half of his (or her) statement.
'I don't take too much offense at the argument of a need for basic transport, but without the discipline imposed by an open market, there is no incentive to operate efficiently...'
The poster says he supports 'basic transport,' but only if it is privatized. He says he opposes public transportation, since it is funded by taxpayer dollars. So does this opposition apply to tax-payer funded roads and freeways as well? That was my question.
This is the tired libertarian refrain. They are opposed to any sort of public transportation (whether it be bus or rail) because of the lack of 'free market discipline.' Yet you will never hear them saying anything against taxpayer-funded roads, bridges and highways. It doesn't seem to make much sense. Maybe someone could enlighten me?
Many privatized things are funded by taxpayer dollars. Privatized prisons, for example, clearly are not making their money from the inmates.
And actually, if you listen to a lot of libertarian refrainers, they say similar things about road projects. I mean, Bay Bridge anyone? It's a very nice bridge but the freemarket would have stepped in and built the $1 billion version that wasn't as swanky.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
