Aren't buses better then subways for most places, given their lower costs and greater flexibility? Isn't this true for most of Europe, also? Or does the typical mid-sized city in Europe have subways like London, Paris, and NYC?
Compare that to a subway that just goes below most obstacles in a straight line, travels at >80km/h and usually has no places to yield whatsoever. Fast travel in a predictable way, independent of traffic, weather, whatever. Maybe rush hour will make getting into the subway a little slower, but that's about it.
Subway is far superior to everything, including trams and trains for urban environments. It is expensive to build however, which is why in Europe it is usually supplemented with trams and busses for outlying routes or to fill the gaps between tunnels. Flexibility is rather a minus actually, because it leads to bus routes being subject to "snaking" through neighborhoods to satisfy the occasional political whim. Planted 5 trees and a bench? Call it "Mayour Mueller Park", add a bus stop with a 5min detour. Lather, rinse, repeat. Subways are somewhat immune to that.
Bus/Taxi-only lanes are pretty common actually.
In this case, Buses can drive in the underground tunnels that were built for this subway, can't they? Seattle did it for many years until they replaced it with trains: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=etT_wVuKy_I
In that case, the only thing slowing down the bus is speed limits, which are probably a bit lower than a train, since train would be safe on rails, but still I wonder why they didn't use that given that the tunnels are here and in good condition
I think running buses in subway tunnels is just someone's creative idea to attempt to sabotage having reliable mass transit so that ridership doesn't get too high and they can argue that the whole program should be cut a few years down the line.
The tunnels and their exits next to interstate highway already exist per the article, so at this point the construction costs are assumed to be negligible (compared to a "$2.6 billion and take thirty years to build" system quoted in [1])
it would be used exactly like it was in Seattle: as a shortcut through the city for some routes. The bus retains all its advantages outside the tunnel, it's basically an underground dedicated bus lane.
If really popular then it can get upgraded to a real train, like it was done in Seattle.
This is actually a negative. Build a train, and it's really hard to move. This actually spurs investment. A bus line can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.
I think it's more the tunnel that makes these lines less likely to be discontinued, rather than the train. Tunnels are just expensive to move whether they're for trains or for busses.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_New_York_City...
All save one of the defunct lines in NYC went defunct because they were demolished for other stuff--because they were elevated or at-grade lines. (The one underground line that went defunct was split into three lines in active use today.) Putting it underground definitely increases political and budget survivability.
Maybe driver-less buses would be a new sweet spot? Maintain detailed road maps for the driving software instead of tracks?
Would be a political nightmare. One of these autonomous busses hit a passenger and it becomes a policy nightmare. Public control center gets hacked, its a technical nightmare.
To problems like this, sometimes the solution isn't tech.
Something no one brought up is the recent-ish idea of bus rapid transit (BRT), which solves the problem of not having exact change, because who does these days? BRT gives some of the advantages of rail like fare machines and dedicated right-of-ways. Albuquerque (which is far too small for a subway) just put in its first line.
Some built other alternatives to buses or shared-grade trams, for example by putting fast local trains under same ticket system (train-based local transit was very popular in UK till Beeching Axe, too), others experiment with things like separate-grade trams - cheaper than proper train-line, but still achieve separation from car traffic.
Because the same thing that gives buses flexibility and cheap start, is the thing that makes the biggest problem - sharing space with car traffic.
If there's a traffic jam, buses stop too. If something takes out part of car infrastructure, the dedicated lanes might be lost for a time, too. When Lazienkowski Bridge burned down in 2015 in Warsaw, figuring a connection that allowed one to take train or subway became crucial, as previously very fast buses (bus/taxi lanes!) would give me a commute longer than commuting from Amsterdam to London by train.
Buses too but they’re not as dominant as in north america. Trams are generally quieter, prettier and less obtrusive. And with quite frequent service. Also easy to know your way around without knowing the routes as they’ll have lines on a map.