>>1231229>>>1231210>Wrong and wrong.>60m/200ft long LRTs can carry 400+ pax, the longest biarticulated buses don't even get to 200.>And an LRT lane is narrower than a BRT lane. In fact, an LRT lane for the widest LRT vehicles is pretty much exactly as wide as a lane on the Bay Bridge (11'7"), a BRT lane would be wider.>It's heavy rail that would take up 2 lanes according to that study, not LRT.You are right, and he is right. He is right for any city in the world, other than one that is as grafty as San Assfrancisco.
Assfrancsico could have upped the anti at any time, during the rebuilding of MUNI, then could have gone with better/expandable signaling, more flexable trains, with better design, but with the powers that be, They went with the worst of the worst.
"The Belgian manufacturer Van Hool offers a 25 metres (82.0 ft) bi-articulated bus with a capacity of about 180 passengers."
I would call that close, and the first guy is right, but he is completely wrong that these buses could ever be used in The US/California/San Assfrancisco.
