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.
I'm at a planning conference today and heard a presentation about bus rapid transit. Someone asked the presenter about development generated by bus rapid transit. The presenter stated that bus rapid transit, when done right, has the ability to generate development as well as light rail transit. While rail is "sexier", both have one key component - permanent stations. You're investing money into building physical stations vs. just a sign post on the side of the road. It's not like you can just pick it up and move it somewhere else. As long as the developer is sure about the permanence of something that adds positive value to his development, he'd be more likely to invest in that area.
we should, IMO, definitely have more-permanent bus pickups that shield riders from the rain. But that probably also means fewer stops. I can't claim to know all the stops, routes, etc. But if you spend $5K+ on a fairly simple shelter, you can't have one every 1/2 mile in some places.
we should, IMO, definitely have more-permanent bus pickups that shield riders from the rain. But that probably also means fewer stops. I can't claim to know all the stops, routes, etc. But if you spend $5K+ on a fairly simple shelter, you can't have one every 1/2 mile in some places.
They look at how many people get on/off the bus at each stop and that's how they prioritize in terms of who gets a shelter or bus stop amenities when funding is available.
I'm at a planning conference today and heard a presentation about bus rapid transit. Someone asked the presenter about development generated by bus rapid transit. The presenter stated that bus rapid transit, when done right, has the ability to generate development as well as light rail transit. While rail is "sexier", both have one key component - permanent stations. You're investing money into building physical stations vs. just a sign post on the side of the road. It's not like you can just pick it up and move it somewhere else. As long as the developer is sure about the permanence of something that adds positive value to his development, he'd be more likely to invest in that area.
The question then becomes, will we get the good version of BRT or some dumbed down version? Nothing has been decided yet.
The question then becomes, will we get the good version of BRT or some dumbed down version? Nothing has been decided yet.
They will 100% half-ass it. The low population density and lack of traffic in Raleigh prohibit them from implementing a true BRT system. If they did, it would hemorrhage money for a long time until the city both densifies and when our traffic begins to be an actually problem.
I would and will use the BRT when it's introduced. However, the average Joe will not unless either they have 1) a reasonable walk with sidewalks to the BRT stop, which is something the vast majority of Raleigh does not have or 2) the traffic is so bad it makes a lot of sense in terms of commute times.
I can't stress enough how horrible Raleigh was in terms of developing, growing and connecting the city for pedestrians. The damage is already done and it will take billions to properly fix.
They will 100% half-ass it. The low population density and lack of traffic in Raleigh prohibit them from implementing a true BRT system. If they did, it would hemorrhage money for a long time until the city both densifies and when our traffic begins to be an actually problem.
I can't stress enough how horrible Raleigh was in terms of developing, growing and connecting the city for pedestrians. The damage is already done and it will take billions to properly fix.
Most if not all cities lose money on public transportation - it's not a revenue generator (to my knowledge) in any city.
Oh well........can't fix the past and I feel good that the staff in the transportation department right now is pro-walking/biking and pro-transit so I think we're headed in the right direction despite the money it will take to catch up in those areas.
Most if not all cities lose money on public transportation - it's not a revenue generator (to my knowledge) in any city.
Oh well........can't fix the past and I feel good that the staff in the transportation department right now is pro-walking/biking and pro-transit so I think we're headed in the right direction despite the money it will take to catch up in those areas.
That is a good point to bring up. The current planning department and staff is very proactive in this regard. It's a very good thing for the city.
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.
