Yes, in an ideal world, we would all live in walkable cities with great cycling and public transport.

But, particularly in North America, Australia, and New Zealand, we have been left with around 60 year’s worth of car dependent suburban sprawl.

In quite a few metro areas, the inner city has a great public transport network. Yet once you get out to the suburbs, you’re lucky to see a bus every half hour. Services often also start late and end early.

As a starting point, should there be more emphasis placed on upgrading suburban bus networks to a 10-minute frequency or better?

Better bus networks are less expensive upfront than large extensions to metro and heavy rail systems. And they can prove that demand exists, when it becomes available.

What are your thoughts?

  • No One@kolektiva.social
    2·
    2 years ago

    @ajsadauskas @poVoq
    Busses can be useful and they can provide top-notch public transportation. To be effective and on time, they need designated lanes or streets that don’t allow privately owned cars. May as well put streetcars in. They are quieter and cleaner.

    • Helle Daryd@tacobelllabs.net
      2·
      2 years ago

      @No_One @ajsadauskas @poVoq Almere, The Netherlands was designed with dedicated bus rights of way for 90% of their route. The reason trams weren’t chosen was the expected population (trams carry 2x as many people) and the infrastructure cost that it adds. A concrete base, asphalt topped bus track is well under half the price due to the high cost of electrification.

    • Christian Kent@urbanists.social
      2·
      2 years ago

      @No_One @ajsadauskas @poVoq I really *do* love my trams more than my buses, even the L2 and L3

      But surely there are circumstances where 5 bus services for the price of 1 tram service (I am picking a number out of thin air, correct me please) is worthwhile

      And a combination of bus-only road closures and sensible route selections can make all the difference to reliability — you don’t need a BRT everywhere