Hacker News Reader

Comment by onemoreact | Hacker News Reader

The problem with buses for transport is they use the same infrastructure as cars. So, as congestion increases they become less viable. Light rail really solves 2 problems, it can transport more people than an equivalent investment in roads and it increases property values by decreasing the need for parking spaces while increasing mobility.

PS: Roads are really expensive if you compare road infrastructure costs to miles driven you need a ~3$ / gallon gas tax to break even. Anything less than that and your just subsidizing cars which does not lower costs it just hides them.

View on HN

As I said, "If there's a growing need for light-rail, chances are" buses being the better solution. I'm not arguing against light-rail in general. But most of the times light-rail is considered as solution in political debates, buses would do a better job. Cheaper prices allow for even more transportation capacities than light-rail. Light-rail is a good option when bus-capacities can't be increased anymore.

"The problem with buses for transport is they use the same infrastructure as cars" IMHO this is to be considered as advantage over light-rail. There is no additional infrastructure to be built or maintained.

In theory this could be solved politically, but when I'm looking for housing options, I tend to ignore bus and look only at rail, because it's the only thing I can be reasonably sure will still be there in a few years. Buses get rerouted all the time, so I can't assume that my convenient directly-on-the-line-to-work bus route will still exist in 5 years, but I can fairly safely assume that BART will still be on the same route in 5 years, because the cost of moving rails and building stations makes it much more stable (light rail isn't as expensive to reroute as BART, but still too expensive to do normally).

From what I've read, developers think similarly: they're willing to invest capital in housing developments near rail-transit lines, but not on the basis of bus lines, because they need to be able to assume that the transit situation will be stable for long enough to pay off their investment. In other words, the flexibility of buses is precisely the problem, because it means residents/developers/employers can't rely on them in making plans.

"Buses get rerouted all the time" living in Hamburg, Gemrany most of my life, I have had seen bus lines rerouted maybe 2-3 times in my life. Changing public transit access that often as in your city argubaly adds uncertainty to development projects. but i'd tackle this problem from another angle.

I think a lot more urban public transportation could be achieved by tackling your mentioned correlation: Property owners benefit by far the most from public transport infrastructure errected nearby their property (at least if underground or not noisy etc.).

Even if the owner's property taxes rise, the tax increase usually lacks behind the actual property value increase by some years up to a decade.

So if I want to solve it politically I'd:

1) get rid of that lacking-behind in property valuation. Then

2) maybe add the expectalbe increased property-tax income to my calculation when planning a new subway line

3) consider talking to owners. if a subway line is to be errected, I'd propose to owners that I'am willing to errect stations nearby their property if they participate in the costs.

I see your argument, and in some places, this might work.

I believe that in most places in the US, your suggestion that nearby property owners might support nearby transit to the extent of partially paying for it would be a non-starter. Usually, nearby (say, within 200m of the route) property owners oppose new bus/train routes tooth and claw.

One of the most famous examples of anti-transit sentiment from property owners is the congressional bill that Henry Waxman (a generally liberal Democrat) got passed, prohibiting a subway extension from downtown Los Angeles toward the ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Subway_Extension_(Los_...).

About 25 years later, this law was lifted, but a lot of the sentiment remains.

wow... this NIMBY mentality is a complete different issue. my idea isn't really thought through and may be naive. But i think the anti-transit sentiment is very much comparable to anti-gerntification sentiments and a somewhat blurred definition of public space, real property and the like.

Thanks for your perspective. It's interesting to connect anti-gentrification to NIMBYism.

I have come to believe that most anti-gentrification sentiment, at least where I live in LA, is misplaced. It's a young city and to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic. There are laws (many mistaken, IMHO) to prevent property taxes from rising more than about 2% per year, so nobody will be forced from their home. Renters may have to move, although there are rent protections on many properties also.

Anyway, anti-gentrification sentiment is interesting because it never stops. People who moved to my neighborhood in 2000 think the 2010'ers are gentrifiers. People who moved here in 1990 think it's the 2000'ers. People who moved here in 1970 think it's anyone after 1980.

Most resentment and name-calling about "gentrification" is among the young, however. By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing. At least where I live.

"anti-gentrification sentiment is interesting because it never stops."

Excactly! Where does one draw the line? Usually one draws the line so that protection includes himself. For me, it's a moral problem as well, because this line-drwaring scales up to elections that justify way too much government regulation. From my perspective anti-gentrification sentiment is almost always misplaced.

"By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing."

Maybe the difference is also, that NIMBY-ians engage proactivly against changes (they know that where they live is already good), where as anti-gentrificationists seem to be more reactionary (not anybody expected sudden price rises to occur).

Where I connect NIMBY- and anti-gentrification-sentiments is that one want's prohibit things to change (anti-immigration, trade restrictions). All of those sentiments are understandable. But prohibiting things from change via legislation tends to be an unfair deal for future generations. The change I don't want to happen is an opportunity that for many will never occur.

"to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic."

Absolutely. In Hamburg there are restrictions on building heights. The most stupid one is, that in downtown 'no bulding should block the view of the churches'. It's the one place in Hamburg, where land is so expensive that buildings need to rise in height if you want affordable rent prices. But the buildings can't rise, so no one lives there anymore. Thus the churches have lost their communities and downtown is a dead place after 8pm. Just one example where the attitude of "conserving culture" leads to killing it off.

Update:

Took a while for me to find it, but to prove that anti-gentrification really never stops, take st.tropez/côte d'azur france, where the millionaires don't wan't the billionaires to come in http://www.amb-cotedazur.com/Did-you-know/rich-russians-are-...

There are lot's of ways to implement both system, but when it comes to significantly dealing with congestion busses simply don't work.

Consistent market research and experience over the last 50 years in Europe and North America shows that car commuters are willing to transfer some trips to rail-based public transport but not to buses. Typically light rail systems attract between 30 and 40% of their patronage from former car trips. Rapid transit bus systems attract less than 5% of trips from cars, less than the variability of traffic.[42]

That said, buses are cheaper than new roads so most city's adopt them at some point. The real issues IMO is most city's are going to be around in 100 years and need to think in those terms. When you look at New York and other major city's you see how development and public transport are closely linked and light rail continues to gain value even in competition with cars and buses.

But where do you put the light rail? Put it on an elevated track, and that property value change goes the other way (noise, visual pollution, loss of sunlight). OK, so put it in the middle of the street. If it's a dedicated lane, not only do you suck up space from the cars, you have to figure out how to squeeze in platforms, and the light rail has to stop at both platforms and intersections making it painfully slow (take the Boston green lines as an example). If it isn't a dedicated lane, it's a streetcar and you have cars constantly squeezing around it and everybody has to stop to let people run into the middle of the street to get on, plus the odd traffic patterns created at every intersection (Toronto).

If you have the space for a dedicated right-of-way you might as well go full out and make high-cap rail. Otherwise, I see light rail as the worst compromise in-between subways and buses. There's a reason Manhattan has essentially eliminated all at-grade light rail, and elevated rail still exists only in the relatively poor neighborhoods: wherever the subway doesn't run, buses are best at filling the gap without destroying the street-level environment.

In some european countries, Portugal is the one I know best, actually have a specific lane for buses, where cars cannot use (fined if they do). That should help avoiding congestions for buses, at a very low cost.

Yep. + painting those lanes on the pavement is also cheaper than to rip the streets open and build entirely new rail tracks.

Losing a traffic lane is not cheap. That said, allowing buses to use additional lanes has significant benefits. One of the best ideas I have seen is only allowing buses to use the break down lane. Opening them up to normal traffic risks major delays after an accident and often the real issue is off ramps not though traffic, but a bus can get around the occasional broken down car with minimal delays while significantly increasing a roads capacity. Also adding bus specific shortcuts can provide major benefits for minimal cost.

> The problem with buses for transport is they use the same infrastructure as cars.

I've always thought that was their #1 selling point. Light rails are just insanely expensive. When you've already got roads in place, buses become very attractive.

Unless you have heavy congestion. In that case they become much less attractive.

Why is lightrail better than bus(-only) express lanes?

A tramway can be 50 meters long. A bus is usually 12-18 meters.

A tram system can be fully automated.

An electric engine is more efficient (constant torque) in an urban area with lots of stops.

In countries like those in Eastern Europe, car drivers don't give a fk about buses and bus lanes. But they are scared enough to make way for the trams (if they collide, the tram will barely be scratched while their car ends up totally smashed).

The tram vehicle lasts more time. My town uses 50 year old trams without any issues, while the buses must be replaced after 10-15 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com