paaviloinen

Which then again is too "techy" for the average person. We both are less likely to be the average person, see.

Fat-shaming is so commonplace especially in ballet and dancing in general and this is quite a common way to put it - using the allegory of "motivation" even when they refer to shape, so I would argue that this is a justified way of "reading between the lines".

This video is so full of American stereotypes about transit and bad examples of what is considered improvement because you're having 10k instead of 3k riders per day in a city with an urban area of more than 600k people?! I think you could have a pretty sensible network that better serves people with the money poured in the UVX. The initial cost of the BRT is higher than that of light rail but with 10k riders per day do you even need a BRT? BRT also is not direct replacement for the tram or light rail, it doesn't offer the same capacity and ride comfort. Also the queue jumps mentioned in the video are potentially lethal to cyclists.

With good planning of infrastucture this is less of a problem. I say this as someone who's suffered minor head injury and minor TBI because of the mentioned problem. Only reason for this was I was obeying the law in a place where the only legal place to cycle was in this case the most dangerous one too, and where I had cycled numerous times before without an incident. Now it luckily has a separate path for cyclists, and soon the tram tracks are located in a place where you'd have to do mad stunts to "get into the groove" (no pun intended).

Short answer: no.

You can charge electric buses at termini though. Albeit this doesn't change the challenges much. The electric buses are best suited for lines where the higher capacity isn't needed and where the line is not likely to be longer than a little over 15 km.

You wouldn't even have to go for the "replacing the S-Bahn" to show how ludicrous a BRT is as a suggestion, unless you're not paying the constructors and drivers a living wage, which is why it makes sense in say Colombia and not in Germany...just think about replacing the M-lines of Berlin tramways with a BRT. It would have to be couple meters wider, would be terribly unreliable and inefficient, not to speak of noisy and bumpy. Now who would want to have that? Not to mention how much the upkeep of two lanes of dedicated BRT costs vs. maintenance of steel on steel rails and catenary. (Most of the time you'd find the latter to be cheaper.) In Helsinki, Finland we are currently waiting for a new tram/light rail option to replace a bus service that should have been a modern tram/light rail line in the first place: https://raidejokeri.info/en/ In the neighbour municipality Vantaa some parties were trying to push for a BRT option but the independent research suggested light rail/tram option to be the best and this is what was chosen: https://www.vantaa.fi/en/housing-and-environment/traffic-and-transport/vantaa-light-rail (they call it light rail but in some ways it's also reasonable to call it a tram)

This is a common misbelief. Trams and light rail usually have points where the units can go around if one unit has derailed, unless the unit has tipped over, which in itself is very very rare. Good planning is crucial. "A better solution uses corridors dedicated to buses that are electric powered." Nope, nope, nope. You have to present arguments to this claim, maybe then I can be bothered to counterargument such nonsense.

I thought letbane was not bad. What issues are you referring to?

If you would demolish all the other options, then it would de facto do just that. But nobody has even suggested the kind of baffoonery.

Tram can have both, even on a single line.

Have you actually ever seen the tram network in North Rhine and Westphalia, Germany? Also in many places in the world the replacement of trams by buses has been since seen as a mistake and there are plenty of examples of extensive new trams networks introduced and in planning in cities where they got rid of them in 1960s.