There are lots of reasons trains would be better, but they come down to capacity and if you are building something dedicated tracks are similar price for more capacity. Brisbane has proven that done well the bus works very well and you don’t need trains until you need high capacity.
“Metro” literally can’t run on regular roads. The specialised buses are too big to fit in normal lanes. It can only run on dedicated BRT routes. i.e., dedicated tracks.
But more so I’m just angry at the misleading marketing. It’s an ok project with the wrong name. And other more substantial problems like already decreasing the promised frequency, giving up on level boarding and off-vehicle tap-ons. But it was the name that I was trying to highlight in my earlier comment.
No I do realise. But the post specifically said “the rest of the world is building subways”. I was pointing out: hey, no, that’s not true. Not unless you count something being called “Metro” that definitively is not a Metro.
Yup. According to these specs the Metro buses are 2,550 mm wide. The AustRoad guidelines specify “the legal width limit of commercial vehicles is 2.5 m”. The Metro buses had to receive special exemptions to be approved for use on the separated BRT routes they’re going to be running on, and for their more limited testing/promotional phase around the city elsewhere prior to the actual commencement of service (which should be coming in October).
Very interesting guidelines. I understand we need them. But, as a European where public transport may be more prominent, it surprises me that the government doesn’t change the guidelines to accommodate them.
There are lots of reasons trains would be better, but they come down to capacity and if you are building something dedicated tracks are similar price for more capacity. Brisbane has proven that done well the bus works very well and you don’t need trains until you need high capacity.
“Metro” literally can’t run on regular roads. The specialised buses are too big to fit in normal lanes. It can only run on dedicated BRT routes. i.e., dedicated tracks.
But more so I’m just angry at the misleading marketing. It’s an ok project with the wrong name. And other more substantial problems like already decreasing the promised frequency, giving up on level boarding and off-vehicle tap-ons. But it was the name that I was trying to highlight in my earlier comment.
You fail to realize how badithe rest of us have it. I wish for your problems. Not that you are wrong and shouldn’t be mad, but you still have it good.
No I do realise. But the post specifically said “the rest of the world is building subways”. I was pointing out: hey, no, that’s not true. Not unless you count something being called “Metro” that definitively is not a Metro.
Seriously? We are using the same model in European cities, even small ones, without issues in mixed traffic.
Yup. According to these specs the Metro buses are 2,550 mm wide. The AustRoad guidelines specify “the legal width limit of commercial vehicles is 2.5 m”. The Metro buses had to receive special exemptions to be approved for use on the separated BRT routes they’re going to be running on, and for their more limited testing/promotional phase around the city elsewhere prior to the actual commencement of service (which should be coming in October).
Very interesting guidelines. I understand we need them. But, as a European where public transport may be more prominent, it surprises me that the government doesn’t change the guidelines to accommodate them.
at least gothenburg is going to call their chonky buses “metrobus”, not just “metro”