Reflection of article XX - Book Report/Review Example

From the side of city planners, BRT will require less investment in infrastructural development costs; for example, the case of the subways running below the ground, which require major capital investments. Further, the option should serve the different cities better, unlike the light-rail option, which never touched the downtown of Cleveland. From the review of the article, many of the expectations from the penetration of BRT were supported. Some of the conclusive benefits of the adoption of the BRT option include that it feels and looks more like rail transport, and the buses travel around the clock.

Furthermore, the service blends better with many US cities than other modes of transport, and investing in it takes less expenses – when compared to the light-rail option, which would require an expenditure of $800 million. Additionally, the adoption of the BRT option does not interfere with other infrastructures like bike lanes adversely. In conclusion, the BRT option is likely to yield more benefits, considering that it has proven advantageous at areas like Alban and Schenectady (Youker, 2011).

Discussion From the review of the article, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) could offer a more economical option to the challenges facing light rail transportation. Some of the advantages to be benefited from, following the adoption of the BRT option of transportation include that the buses take a very short time for riders to get on and off; the buses take less than 30 seconds. Unlike previous travel options, the BRT option allows travelers to pay for their tickets at the boarding station, therefore, avoiding queuing at fare payment areas, which contributes to time wastage (Youker, 2011).

Further, the time taken between one bus and the next is as short as five minutes, during peak hours, which is a great advantage for travelers. Taking account of all the time-saving advantages, clearly the travel option will improve the connectivity of cities, and the ease of travel among passengers. Secondly, the buses take a large number of riders, which will help ease the congestion on the roads, as well as that at light rail transportation centers. The buses, unlike previous bus travel options accommodate 100 passengers (Youker, 2011).

Considering that the busses are able to accommodate more passengers, it is clear that the option will help in the decongestion of cities, and will improve the ease of travel between the urban dwellers. From the adoption of the BRT option of transportation, the planners of the city will need to spend fewer costs on the adoption of the option. Therefore, it will be cheaper to adopt, than other models like the $800 million in the case of light rail. For this reason, city planning organizations should work on the BRT options, because it will leave more resources for other areas of development (Youker, 2011).

With regards to the level of services that the customers of transport network, the BRT option will work better, considering that it will link areas and urban centers that were previously, not touched by other transportation options. One example that was deficient in this area was the case of light-rail transport, which never served some downtown areas of Cleveland. Considering the advantages, the flexibility and the ease of adopting the BRT option of travel, the disadvantages of the option include that sidewalks, and bike lanes may be narrowed.

Secondly, there was the concern that loading zones and parking spaces would be lost, which was addressed