I find this utterly unpersuasive. Two examples (one in Delhi and one in D.C.) are not "wherever." And rails criss-crossed an enormous number of arterials in most major American cities until the 1940s. Most are gone now.

Also: BRT is more expensive to staff and maintain. Rail lasts longer.

The real argument is that the expensive bit is grade seperating. Once you do that, buses aren't cheaper than rail. It's easy to forget how expensive roads are until you need to build a new grade seperated one. Elevated rail takes less concrete than elevated roads. Rail tunnels are smaller than bus tunnels.

If you're not grade seperating, there's an argument for BRT. But to do it right you need to take capacity from cars, and not just at the easy parts (like Seattle does). You need to take capacity at intersections and bottlenecks. If you can ever imagine taking a lane all the way down Denny, never sharing with cars even to let them turn, and giving buses signal priority, then you'd have real BRT. But this absolutely won't happen in Seattle in the present day.

I'm still hoping that the light link will make it to Bellevue. That, and I'd like to get some sort of long-term parking solution available at the Issaquah highlands park & ride - as it stands there's no way for me to bus or rail to the airport if I'm going to be gone for more than 24 hours or depart/arrive on a weekend.

The "progressives" will never support bus anything, because white yuppies consider themselves too good for buses and the brown people who belong on them.

I could imagine the BRT system running out at the edges, but Seattle doesn't have any BRT infrastructures in the core. The buses run right down third with all the other buses, traffic, pedestrians, etc. And it just gets worse from there.

At least the A line from Tukwila to Federal Way runs in an HOV lane for more or less its entire route. It has signal bypasses in several places where the bus can continue even if the light is red in its travel direction and signal priority in general.

I don't think the B line has a similar level infrastructure and the disastrous C and D lines don't even have all their stops yet.

What they should have done, BRT-wise, was build that instead of the budget-busting light rail system. It would have been cheaper and more flexible. But no self-respecting white rail-fetishizing "progressive" yuppie would ever have settled for it. Not ever.

It seems to work pretty well here in Brisbane, Autralia, if you are well organised and aren't in a particular hurry. People complain that it is expensive, but it's expensive to own and run a car too.

@7 I was just in SF, and I couldn't even recognize the "dedicated" bus lanes because there were so many taxis, SUVs and Benzes driving in them. I drove in one for 2 or 3 blocks before I noticed the signs. Of the two lanes, at least a third of non-bus traffic was in the bus lane.

So Mister G is now a race-based concern troll?

Listen up, "G".

In our case (unlike Portland's), rail is coming from an entirely separate, dedicate funding stream. Replacing inefficient buses in high-demand areas allows for better and more productive redeployment of those same buses elsewhere.

Bus riders -- of which you clearly have never been one -- win big when trains and buses work symbiotically improve their efficient and mobility range.

That's why no major cities anywhere in the world succeed with "bus only" networks. Too much waste is involved. Even Curitiba, the inventor of BRT, is building a subway right now.

Anyway, you shot your argument to smithereens the moment you used the word "flexible". All you mean by that is "I intend to drive/stop in your lane and fuck up your bus service wherever possible, because you can hypothetically go around."

The real story would be Dow Constantine's role in this BS rebranding.

Agreed, Goldy. While there are other arguments to be made, this one is particularly relevant here because of WA's initiative system that makes it easier for public programs to be Eyman'd. Given that there have been efforts to make carpool lanes nonexclusive, it is reasonable to predict that BRT lanes would also get hijacked at the first budget or traffic crunch.

In Portland, cars can drive in the MAX lanes and Street Car lanes. But motorists get the fuck out of the way because it is well known that those trains take a full city block to come to a stop. If you fuck around trying to hog the lane, you're liable to get killed.

Downtown Seattle has dedicated bus lanes at certain times of day.

@14, Mr G is NotFan and a few other noms de troll. You can recognize them by the use of "progressive."

@6 &11

interesting!

...wait, no it's not. what would be interesting is for you to tell us about your days as a Skinhead Against Racial Prejudice.

@ 1, those rails didn't disappear due to attrition. They disappeared because the auto manufacturers purchased streetcar companies and shut them down. The goal? Get more people to buy cars.

I'm surprised nobody has already commented to tell you that. Maybe it's not as well known as it should be.

Per various comments above, esp. @8, the only way BRT would work is if we went all Baron von Hausmann on Seattle and demolished various sections to create Les Grandes Boulevardes to build dedicated bus lanes.

But since that has approximately -zero chance of happening in our little peninsula, then rail, with it's smaller tunnels and separated lines makes great sense to me. Plus, it's already underway, so let's keep expanding it.

<rant>Seattle MISSED ITS FUCKING CHANCE for intelligent mass-transit in 1962 after the World's Fair debuted the Monorail. City developers could have reserved rail/monorail right-of-ways then for the very growth Seattle was courting by holding a World's Fair in the first place. BUT NO... no right-of-ways reserved, no rail/monorail lines built... and now we have to fucking retrofit the goddamn city for the burgeoning population, already desperate for better transit.

Fucking idiots.

Grr.

</rant>

To Matt, Love, Wikipedia:

There is now general agreement that this conspiracy was not the main reason for the decline in street cars in the USA. Wrote one author "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."

#22, there isn't a "burgeoning population." It's gone up a bit. And people here aren't "desperate for transit." You and the other "progressive" shitheads are pursuring a gridlock policy in hopes of making people "desperate" for your "solutions," which will "solve" nothing.

@24

fine. rather than "desperate", let's take my personal situation for example: I am "really excited" about the "prospects" of more "efficient mass transit" that might "get me out of my car more often" and off a road where I might get purposely get into a "head-on collision" with "you".

#25, so now the Seattle "progressives" are so irked by opposition that they are making violent threats? I'm not surprised, but I can't let it go unnoticed.

please don't let it go unnoticed. please continue impotently posting on this blog for no real reason but to hear the sound of your fingers as they stroke the keyboard and that feeling of self-satisfaction as you hit the Post Comment button. please continue to shriek with rage whenever you see a bicyclist whiz by you as you are driving somewhere, knowing they aren't paying for the road. please tell us about the upcoming Romney presidency.

please... don't keep us in suspense.

Gosh, LEE, did your thorazine script run out?