urbanMSP

because of the one way pairs, the stops westbound aren't as close as you might think.

Honestly, I think Republicans don't even really know what they're funding. They frame literally all transportation options with relation to the advantages of cars, so anything communal or fixed is anywhere from "a fine option for the poors" to "Marxism on rails" in their eyes.

They are CONSTANTLY complaining about "guideways" (i.e. fixed transit) because, in their simplistic view, trains and dedicated BRT are inflexible and therefore not worth the money. If they knew that aBRT routes are less flexible (compared to standard bus routes) thanks to their added infrastructure, they would probably refuse to fund them.

Essentially, the Senate GOP thinks of aBRT as "Local Bus+" while DFLers think of it to be closer to "Light Rail on Wheels" - a classic compromise.

Honestly, I think Republicans don't even really know what they're funding. They frame literally all transportation options with relation to the advantages of cars, so anything communal or fixed is anywhere from "a fine option for the poors" to "Marxism on rails" in their eyes.

They are CONSTANTLY complaining about "guideways" (i.e. fixed transit) because, in their simplistic view, trains and dedicated BRT are inflexible and therefore not worth the money. If they knew that aBRT routes are less flexible (compared to standard bus routes) thanks to their added infrastructure, they would probably refuse to fund them.

Essentially, the Senate GOP thinks of aBRT as "Local Bus+" while DFLers think of it to be closer to "Light Rail on Wheels" - a classic compromise.

The E Line draft corridor plan has been released and open for comment.
https://www.metrotransit.org/e-line-corridor-plan

I do like the upgrades the "aBRT" service provides on the A Line, but if anybody thinks it's "Light Rail on Wheels" they're delusional. It's the baseline for good, reliable bus service and nothing more.

I do like the upgrades the "aBRT" service provides on the A Line, but if anybody thinks it's "Light Rail on Wheels" they're delusional. It's the baseline for good, reliable bus service and nothing more.

Dr. Delusional here, hello.

Completely disagree for the record. Having a better kept schedule, obvious stations ( stops ) and a line that limits twists and turns major difference.

To often busses run infrequent, they branch off making it impossible to understand fully the bus options or are so infrequent that it’s not worth even using the system.

It’s completely just like the LRT only difference is less capacity at stations and on busses. I love the A line it makes transit simple and uncomplicated

It’s just like LRT but on wheels! Maybe less ROW during rush hour but I typically don’t ride during those times so beyond that I’m not sure what is the difference.

If it has steel wheels and runs on track, it's light rail. If it has rubber tires, it's nothing but a bus no what color you paint it or what you say it is and brand it as.

If it has steel wheels and runs on track, it's light rail. If it has rubber tires, it's nothing but a bus no what color you paint it or what you say it is and brand it as.

If it has steel wheels and runs on track, it's light rail. If it has rubber tires, it's nothing but a bus no what color you paint it or what you say it is and brand it as.

This is where my inner pedant wants to post pictures of the Montreal and Paris subways, both of which use rubber tires

Transit modes can be blurry and I think it's best to imagine a spectrum. On one end you have stuff like local buses with meandering routes, no fare prepayment, bad frequencies, etc; on the opposite end you have fully grade-separated automated subways with trains every two minutes. Everything in between is just varying levels of amenities and transit advantages.

aBRT adds some really great amenities that it shares with LRT: direct routes, stop consolidation, high navigability, higher frequency, nice shelters, fare prepayment, all-door boarding, etc. It doesn't add the higher capacity associated with rail, the dedicated lanes typical of BRT/LRT, or the grade separation of a subway, among other things. That puts it somewhere in between "bus" and "light rail."

I don't mean to suggest that the right choice is always to build a subway because it has more amenities and advantages. aBRT scales well; it can be built out much cheaper and faster than those other modes. Not every route has the ridership potential to justify spending billions. But I also think it's wrong to say it's equivalent to, or a substitute for, options like trams, LRT, BRT, or subways.