[austin242]

I just want to know what you think is better Buses or light Rail.

[PeterG]

Well it depends in what locality they're used.
Buses are obviously cheaper, and perhaps the most flexible in that routes can be changed and altered fairly quickly.
Light rail is a faster form of transport (in theory) and is the best compromise between buses and a full subway system.
It depends where you use it though. Small/medium cities are ideal for light rail, as subways are not financially viable while buses do not have the capacity to cope.
Personally, light rail wins it hands down. It's more convenient and user friendly. Obviously, though the subway is the daddy of them all!

[Sekkle]

^ Buses are cheaper in terms of capital cost, but LRT is very competitive, if not out-and-out cheaper in terms of operating costs.

[roadwarrior]

Well, I personally like light rail since in SF, it is a lot cleaner than our buses (although still not super clean). In addition, where there is grade separation, the light rail is much quicker. Our buses go through the city at an anemic pace (8 mph).

[initiald]

I think they really support each other. I don't think you could just have light rail and not a bus service to complement it.

[downtownpdx]

I think light rail is better in terms of encouraging high-density development. Since it's a fixed route, builders and planners have predictability that a moveable bus line can't offer. Of course, the flexibility of buses is nice, but IMO, passengers like the assurance of the 'permanancy' of tracks. (And the trains are just cleaner and don't get stuck in traffic.)

[zilfondel]

Ride quality on trains are always better than buses - buses bump and sway in traffic. Many people get motion sickness on them (or thrown out of their seats) but not on trains.

[Boris2k7]

"What is Better Buses or light Rail"

Neither.

Like initiald said, they support each other. Obviously, they have different purposes and work best in different environments, but there's no reason why one should be placed higher up on the rung.

Buses have more flexibility, lower capital costs, and lower capacity.

Rail systems have more certainty, lower operating costs, and higher capacity.

There are of course several types of bus systems and rail systems so there is a bit of overlap. Generally speaking, buses simply don't compete against trains when servicing a compact, centralized urban environment. But trains have a harder time servicing suburbs and decentralized cities.

[Trae]

LRT. The buses should feed into the LRT.

[Cambridgite]

LRT. The buses should feed into the LRT.

Agreed. And the transfers need to be quick and efficient as well.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is BRT (bus rapid transit). Like LRT, it has it's own dedicated right-of-way, so it doesn't have to sit at lights or compete with traffic, but it's generally slower than LRT and not as sexy. I'd say LRT is better, but again, the points have been made about its flexibility and what not. You obviously can't have an entire transit system made out of just LRT routes. LRT works well when it comes to long-distance routes servicing a downtown area from the burbs and other downtown/inner-city areas. Parking at suburban stations can help too.

[kitchener-lrt]

Agreed. And the transfers need to be quick and efficient as well.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is BRT (bus rapid transit). Like LRT, it has it's own dedicated right-of-way, so it doesn't have to sit at lights or compete with traffic, but it's generally slower than LRT and not as sexy. I'd say LRT is better, but again, the points have been made about its flexibility and what not. You obviously can't have an entire transit system made out of just LRT routes. LRT works well when it comes to long-distance routes servicing a downtown area from the burbs and other downtown/inner-city areas. Parking at suburban stations can help too.

Just an add on to your post. LRT will obviously attract development along the entire line. The area around LRT stations tends to be heavily developed, and quite high in population density (in most cases).

[totheskies]

Agreed. And the transfers need to be quick and efficient as well.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is BRT (bus rapid transit). Like LRT, it has it's own dedicated right-of-way, so it doesn't have to sit at lights or compete with traffic, but it's generally slower than LRT and not as sexy. I'd say LRT is better, but again, the points have been made about its flexibility and what not. You obviously can't have an entire transit system made out of just LRT routes. LRT works well when it comes to long-distance routes servicing a downtown area from the burbs and other downtown/inner-city areas. Parking at suburban stations can help too.

what cities use BRT? I've never actually seen it

[Topher1]

^ Miami's BRT is essentially worthless (IMO). The South Dade Busway is a separate pair of lanes paralleling US-1 after the Metrorail terminus. Service is pretty terrible, and getting to the stations is annoying by automobile, and downright hostile for potential pedestrian riders. There are other systems in N. America that are quite good I hear, but I'll let those with knowledge expand on them.

[Sekkle]

^^ See this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Bus_Rapid_Transit_Systems_in_North_America) for a list of systems in the US, Canada and Mexico. There are plenty more elsewhere in the world.

Phoenix's "BRT" is BRT in name only - there are no dedicated bus lanes (unless you count the fact that they can use the HOV lanes on the freeways, which is also the case with non-"Rapid" buses), and the Rapid routes operate in peak hour and peak direction only.

[kitchener-lrt]

what cities use BRT? I've never actually seen it

Ottawa has an excellent example of BRT. It has many dedicated roads, with many bus routes connecting to a Transitway station. Some Ottawa forumers can probably give you more info about the Transitway.

[austin242]

austin is getting a rapid bus line and a commuter rail line but the problem with our commuter rail is that there is a stop only every 3.5 miles and the rapid bus line is only down congress and lamar which won't help much but for little bit of people who use that line anyways

[Trae]

Austin is getting one New Brt line and one new lightrail line. They both seem like good ideas but the lightrail only has nine stops with 32 miles that is one stop every 3.5 miles so you have limited acess.

I have never heard of the new BRT, or LRT in Austin. I do know there is a commuter rail line under construction.

[Jon Dalton]

Most of our transit systems were entirely electric rail based at one point in time (approximately 1900's to 1930's). From an efficiency perspective LRT is superior all around. The only reason to use buses is it's cheaper and the roads already exist. Imagine if we never scrapped our streetcars and interurban lines but instead modernized them over the years, what amazing transit we would have today? There's no question that LRT is better, it's just a matter of practicality in a world with less money for transit and low ridership to support it. That said, all the world class transit systems of today make use of all technologies where they are most practical - subways in the most dense built up areas, LRT where above ground construction is practical, and buses for night service and secondary routes, with extensive bus lanes in place.

[M1EK]

Austin is getting one New Brt line and one new lightrail line. They both seem like good ideas but the lightrail only has nine stops with 32 miles that is one stop every 3.5 miles so you have limited acess.

Austin is getting neither BRT nor light rail. Currently under construction is a commuter rail line which doesn't even penetrate downtown by any but the most optimistic definition (hits the Convention Center, where there's no offices). Doesn't go anywhere near UT/Capitol. 99% of passengers will have to transfer to shuttle buses to finish their trip to work.

As for bus - the plan is for Rapid Bus, not BRT, and it included nothing but longer buses with signal-holding gizmoes that were never going to help much anyways (congestion from 2 or 3 lights ahead makes those useless). It's on the shelf now anyways - I would bet against it ever happening.

[jeremy_haak]

One benefit of BRT over LRT is the ability to provide direct transferless service. In the case of Ottawa, most people using transit are heading downtown, or out of downtown. The system is setup that express buses will pick up riders in an outlying suburban area and then move onto the Transitway for a quick trip downtown (and vice versa in the afternoon). The system has been very successful, and if you look at transit use, it is among the highest in North America by most measures despite being overwhelmingly auto-oriented.

In Ottawa's case, the Transitway's route through the CBD isn't on an exclusive ROW, so they are now experiencing major problems with capacity through that section with ~200 buses per hour per direction. It appears likely that they'll be turning to LRT to address this issue; however, that will result in a major change in route structure, and it's not certain how the termination of most express routes would affect ridership.

kitchener-lrt: I should point out the GRTs iXpress would qualify as BRT despite not operating on exclusive ROWs or with transit-priority measures.

[10023]

Rail is always better as a rider than a bus.

[M1EK]

The reason people always think rail is better is that most rail implementations are better than the bus implementations they replaced for objective reasons like speed and reliability. People like to paint this mode preference as an independent variable, but it's really a causative effect - good rail service being better than bad bus service.

That's changing, though, with the deployment of so many shared-lane streetcar operations (which are worse for the rider than a bus operating on the same route - they have none of the advantages of reserved guideway, and all of the disadvantages - like not being able to change lanes to get around a stalled vehicle, for instance). In other words, bad rail service is not necessarily any better than bad bus service, and in some cases can actually be worse.

[Justin10000]

I really, REALLY hate this question.

They are 2 different modes that serve different interests. How one be better than the other, in all situation? It's the worst question to ask.

The question which I feel is more appropriate is: Which mode is better suited for the corridor, or situation in question?

[VivaLFuego]

I'll go ahead and disagree with the norm and say that I -generally- think LRT is a bad idea, from a cost-benefit standpoint. Sure it's cool and sexy, but its capacity is only barely better than a well-served bus line, and its capital cost is astronomical and not all that drastically less than heavy rail. I think there are a few applications where LRT does work, specifically on those few corridors that do have trip density higher than local bus service (e.g. more than ~5000 daily pax/route mile) but still well below the threshold to justify heavy rail (~15000 pax/ route mile), with little potential to reach the heavy rail ridership level anytime soon due to land use patterns and restrictions.

Otherwise, the capital cost for LRT is very high given the relatively meager capacity you get from it. A very well-served bus line would have a throughput capacity of about 3000-4000 passengers/hour. BRT could potentially get as high as 6000-8000/hr with articulated vehicles on very tight headways. LRT is generally in the 10000/hr range, and heavy rail around 20000-30000/hr. All of these of course depend on vehicle capacity, max operating speed, and assume tight peak headways of about 2 minutes.

Was it really justified to spend over a billion dollars in taxpayer funds so 60,000 people in Dallas could take the 50-mile long Light Rail daily? Obviously it's a product of our goofy transit funding system, but a billion could have gone a long way in providing a usable and modern bus system for the Dallas metroplex, particularly something usable for those who are transit-dependent (since in Dallas, like most other cities, local bus services took a hit in order to support the light rail line).

Not to dump on Dallas specifically, but I just think its indicative of most light rail projects in this country. Some light rail projects are definitely within the realm of justifiability; for example, Houston's 8.5 mile line with 40,000 daily riders after a few years is definitely touching the minimum threshold for light rail, and in a few more years with some more TOD could surely be at a level that justified the major capital investment. At the same time, it's unlikely that anytime soon will that corridor have the trip density to justify heavy rail. So that, in contrast to Dallas, seems like a reasonable investment in LRT. But those light rail opportunities are generally rare; outside of our densest cities, most major cities will have perhaps 1 or 2 corridors justifying that level of capital investment. Generally, I think high-quality local bus and heavy rail are the most efficient combination.

[Justin10000]

I think LRT is a great idea.

But I do agree that many LRT systems are grossly overbuilt.

[Boris2k7]

VivaLFuego: I can't blame you for focusing on capital costs. A billion dollars sure SOUNDS like a lot of money. But there's a lot of variation in the costs. And what you are missing from your analysis is that bus systems are grossly expensive to operate. A study from the City of Calgary in 2005 shows that our LRT costs $0.23 USD per passenger per hour to operate, while the bus system costs $1.28 USD per passenger per hour. It should also be noted in regards to capital costs that with the next $700 Million being put into our west line (it being far more expensive than older lines do to the overheated construction market here + underground and above ground portions) the weekday boardings are expected to go over 300 000.

Also, where are the stats for heavy rail? I'd imagine that it is very expensive to build.

EDIT: FYI, the buses + LRT here = over 500 000 weekday boardings, so we must be doing something right...

[alexjon]

People always talk about "choice" riders, which I totally agree with-- but nobody really considers whether or not they would be working where they are if there wasn't a LRT option.

The economy has changed so drastically over the past 10 years, that the definition of choice rider has swung wildly.

In Portland, I took a 15% pay cut to take a job that was on the Yellow line, simply because I felt that being able to have door-to-door service was a bit more pleasant than a shorter two-bus ride.

In fact, in many instances, I arrived late and LOST money since I was not able to work a full day due to bus delays. On light rail, I think my most drastic tardy incident was when a car ran over a motorcycle and stopped the trains. I was 10 minutes late.

[VivaLFuego]

VivaLFuego: I can't blame you for focusing on capital costs. A billion dollars sure SOUNDS like a lot of money. But there's a lot of variation in the costs. And what you are missing from your analysis is that bus systems are grossly expensive to operate. A study from the City of Calgary in 2005 shows that our LRT costs $0.23 USD per passenger per hour to operate, while the bus system costs $1.28 USD per passenger per hour. It should also be noted in regards to capital costs that with the next $700 Million being put into our west line (it being far more expensive than older lines do to the overheated construction market here + underground and above ground portions) the weekday boardings are expected to go over 300 000.

Also, where are the stats for heavy rail? I'd imagine that it is very expensive to build.

EDIT: FYI, the buses + LRT here = over 500 000 weekday boardings, so we must be doing something right...

All worthy points. The fact that funding sources for Operations and Capital are often so drastically segregated and subject to different guidelines distorts the decision-making process.

^alexjon,
As a somewhat relevant point to add to what you say, there is a factor in ridership projections known as "rail bias": a quantifiable increase in the number of riders of a transit service based solely on it being rail rather than bus, all else equal. Usually it's not so drastic, but it's enough to occasioanlly have some impact on a mode decision for a transit route (e.g. Houston building out their system as LRT instead of BRT)

[The Chemist]

I think LRT is a great idea.

But I do agree that many LRT systems are grossly overbuilt.

And some, like Calgary's, are grossly underbuilt. :(

[pdxtex]

i agree some forum poster that light rail and good bus transit go hand in hand. if i had to choose which i like riding more, then lightrail all the way. but a good system definitely needs both.

[lrt's friend]

Here in Ottawa, there is great pressure from the public for a large expansion of our rapid transit network. This all came about as result of the debate that surrounded a cancelled LRT project last year. The reasons for cancellation were complex but there was definitely political interference in the municipal elections that contributed to this decision.

Ottawa has perhaps the best example of BRT in North America with trunk bus routes and suburb to downtown express routes on exclusive ROWs. Despite what has been said in certain rail advocacy websites, it has been very successful and has now reached capacity in the downtown area. Ottawa’s peculiar downtown geography, allows no real opportunities for further expansion downtown without going underground. Yesterday, City council approved to move forward on a $2B+ plan that will include a downtown tunnel, improvements to BRT ROWs and expansion of LRT. Ottawa has a short diesel LRT line, which was designed as a demonstration line. It has drawn double expected ridership. We will now wait for the detailed studies on the $2B project, although I expect some of the BRT projects will proceed soon. Likewise, our sister city across the river has also approved a BRT project on an exclusive ROW and this is likely to start construction in 2008. There is some concern that the two projects are not being coordinated properly.

The Bus vs LRT debate has been intense here. Rail advocates have been lobbying for conversion of BRT ROWs, some have been resisting the upgrade of the demonstration line to electric operations and the public has been misled about the differences between commuter rail, LRT and streetcars. Environmentalists have also entered the debate, basically protesting the construction of a ROW for every possible reason. This has complicated matters as far as getting the public on side with a sensible plan.

Anyway, there are definitely advantages of BRT on exclusive ROWs. You get the flexibility of routing with buses, and also the speed of an exclusive ROW. There is definitely more possibilities for door to door service without transfers than with LRT and this at least partially explains why Ottawa’s transit ridership compares favourably with other North American cities of similar size. Ottawa will likely move towards LRT for future growth simply because there is no room for BRT expansion downtown. There are definite risks in this move, as additional transfers will be required to travel about the city. Of course, there are also some advantages to LRT as already mentioned. Potential lower costs of operations, opportunities for intensification along corridors and the general public perception that trains are better. These are recognized in our current debate.

The availability of ROWs and NIMBY issues will also enter any debate concerning bus vs LRT. In Ottawa’s case, environmental issues have settled one new route on LRT. There are also the issues of diesel fumes vs quiet electric trains, which leads to the argument for removing all buses from downtown in favour of trains. For practical reasons, this is not likely to happen here.

I believe there is no overwhelming advantage of buses over rail or visa versa unless passenger volumes are expected to reach levels suitable for heavy rail. What is more important is whether an exclusive ROW is available or not. Clearly, LRT on an exclusive ROW is better than a bus route in mixed traffic. Likewise, BRT on an exclusive ROW is better than LRT in mixed traffic. A cost/benefit analysis is needed to determine whether the cost of building an exclusive ROW is worthwhile.

I think it is important in any bus vs LRT debate to understand rail lobbyists and environmentalists for what they are and make sure that the debate is balanced so that the best technology is chosen based on your local needs and situation. I believe Ottawa will be moving forward with a mixed solution of BRT and LRT. This shows that there is no clear winner in the bus vs LRT debate as long as both have exclusive ROWs. One thing further can be said. LRT must be supported by good connecting bus routes. I recall reading a San Diego study indicating that 85% of LRT riders either arrived at a LRT station by bus or on foot. LRT which is mostly dependent on Park n’Ride lots will never reach their potential.

As far as those who are nostalgic about long removed streetcar lines, get over it. On today’s car choked streets, streetcars offer few advantages unless a lane can be dedicated to them and transit priority measures can be taken with regards to traffic signals. Streetcars in mixed traffic are not the way to go in most cases.

[M1EK]

As a somewhat relevant point to add to what you say, there is a factor in ridership projections known as "rail bias": a quantifiable increase in the number of riders of a transit service based solely on it being rail rather than bus, all else equal. Usually it's not so drastic, but it's enough to occasioanlly have some impact on a mode decision for a transit route (e.g. Houston building out their system as LRT instead of BRT)

Actually, his post backs up mine - that the "rail bias" ISN'T "all things being equal", it's always because the bus being compared to is bad on objective metrics (in his case, 2 buses, stuck in traffic, versus 1 train, not stuck in traffic).

As for your general comments about LRT - it betrays a very common misconception among people ill-informed about transit - that simply providing an option will attract people to use its capacity. A bad option, like city bus, won't attract anybody away from better options, like their cars. Light rail can and does.

As for Houston, their BRT was rightfully turned back into LRT (which is what the voters voted for) because the demand was there and the capital costs of BRT if it ever gets implemented in this country as promised are nearly as high as light rail (the inevitable reality is that systems promised as bus "rapid" transit end up getting pared back to mere "quality bus" which is just a slightly less sucky city bus).

[Cambridgite]

Environmentalists have also entered the debate, basically protesting the construction of a ROW for every possible reason.

Uhhh, why would ENVIRONMENTALISTS protest improved mass transit? That is, unless they're just idealist faux-environmentalists with no knowledge, but want to feel important by voicing their uneducated opinions.

Clearly, LRT on an exclusive ROW is better than a bus route in mixed traffic. Likewise, BRT on an exclusive ROW is better than LRT in mixed traffic.

Good point. :yes:

I think it is important in any bus vs LRT debate to understand rail lobbyists and environmentalists for what they are and make sure that the debate is balanced so that the best technology is chosen based on your local needs and situation.

Good point. :yes:

I recall reading a San Diego study indicating that 85% of LRT riders either arrived at a LRT station by bus or on foot. LRT which is mostly dependent on Park n’Ride lots will never reach their potential.

Really? I would've thought that would have made it similar to a high-speed commuter rail. Toronto's GO-train gets pretty good ridership.

As far as those who are nostalgic about long removed streetcar lines, get over it. On today’s car choked streets, streetcars offer few advantages unless a lane can be dedicated to them and transit priority measures can be taken with regards to traffic signals. Streetcars in mixed traffic are not the way to go in most cases.

Agreed. Focus on function, not appearance. At the end of the day, a functional transit system will get people out of their cars and from A to B more quickly.

[alexjon]

If a BRT is so flexible, why is it dependent upon dedicated ROWs to be successful?

[waterloowarrior]

Uhhh, why would ENVIRONMENTALISTS protest improved mass transit? That is, unless they're just idealist faux-environmentalists with no knowledge, but want to feel important by voicing their uneducated opinions.
.

http://www.saveourgreenspace.ca/Turtle%20protesters.bmp

[VivaLFuego]

Actually, his post backs up mine - that the "rail bias" ISN'T "all things being equal", it's always because the bus being compared to is bad on objective metrics (in his case, 2 buses, stuck in traffic, versus 1 train, not stuck in traffic).

As for your general comments about LRT - it betrays a very common misconception among people ill-informed about transit - that simply providing an option will attract people to use its capacity. A bad option, like city bus, won't attract anybody away from better options, like their cars. Light rail can and does.

As for Houston, their BRT was rightfully turned back into LRT (which is what the voters voted for) because the demand was there and the capital costs of BRT if it ever gets implemented in this country as promised are nearly as high as light rail (the inevitable reality is that systems promised as bus "rapid" transit end up getting pared back to mere "quality bus" which is just a slightly less sucky city bus).

What point/disagreement are you responding to here?
Yes there is a rail bias, e.g. people will prefer to take rail over bus. That does not speak to whether or not a given corridor has the trip density to justify the capital investment in the rail infrastructure. I think in cases like Dallas and even some of the Los Angeles routes (Green, for example) it was clearly unjustified, seeing as the construction of the light rail meant a reduction in the quantity bus service and actually resulted in overall reduction in transit ridership. There is a time and place for rail, be it heavy or light; my belief is light rail has a much narrower range of applicability than many in this country seem to think, given that its capacity and speed are closer to BRT but its capital cost is closer to HRT.

In terms of recent capital investment, for example, the Wilshire corridor in LA justifies heavy rail, the Main corridor in Houston justifies light rail. But the soon-to-be-built southeast corridor in Houston clearly does not justify light rail any way you slice it; their University and Uptown Lines probably will support LRT if they indeed follow the desired Richmond and Post Oak ROW. In Dallas, the corridor from downtown north to about the LBJ probably warranted light rail, but not much more; that system was and is increasingly overbuilt. San Diego is another where light rail was a good mode choice, but the system is about built to where it should be, and any near-term expansion should be in the form of increased frequencies.

But SLC? Charlotte? Norfolk? Do these really have the trip density to support LRT? Color me skeptical.

[VivaLFuego]

If a BRT is so flexible, why is it dependent upon dedicated ROWs to be successful?

Building and maintaining a BRT ROW is much cheaper than an electrified rail ROW. Power distribution, signalling, ballast, track components.....all much more capital and maintenance intensive than pavement.

[alexjon]

Building and maintaining a BRT ROW is much cheaper than an electrified rail ROW. Power distribution, signalling, ballast, track components.....all much more capital and maintenance intensive than pavement.

Land-use options make BRT ROW a difficult proposition in some cases, especially where the only option is to eat local lanes.

Capital and maintenance might be decreased, but don't discount the fact that you still have to cater to the whims of the populace.

[alexjon]

But SLC? Charlotte? Norfolk? Do these really have the trip density to support LRT? Color me skeptical.

SLC, certainly. So many people ride TRAX that they broke the trains.

Seriously.

[lrt's friend]

Uhhh, why would ENVIRONMENTALISTS protest improved mass transit? That is, unless they're just idealist faux-environmentalists with no knowledge, but want to feel important by voicing their uneducated opinions.

Environmentalists are protesting because it is public project. It is easy to get media attention. In this case, the concern was over a rare turtle habitat, which just gets more media attention. Of course, in doing this they lose focus on the overall picture. By fighting the transit project, they are encouraging more traffic in the same area, which is actually a bigger threat to those same turtles. The environmentalists just can't hope to stop traffic on an existing road eventhough it is posing an increasing threat. So they do what they can, which inadvertantly makes the threat worse.

Really? I would've thought that would have made it similar to a high-speed commuter rail. Toronto's GO-train gets pretty good ridership.

LRT and Commuter Rai1 are different. LRT is usually restricted to the urban area. Commuter Rail covers a larger territory. In the case of LRT, if you have to drive for 15 minutes to a LRT station, and your LRT trip is 15 minutes, there is the great temptation to drive the whole distance. In the case of commuter rail, if your drive is 15 minutes and your rail trip is 45 minutes and the alternative is 45 minutes of bad traffic, commuter rail remains attractive. Therefore, in the case of commuter rail, Park 'n Rides are more important sources of riders. In the case of urban LRT, you will be more successful if your riders can use transit for their entire trip.

[lrt's friend]

Just to show you how media attention can distort things. In a recent election, a candidate's sole platform was saving the turtles and stopping the transit project. Because she was running for a fairly popular party, she managed to get a few thousand votes and free publicity during the campaign.

[zilfondel]

Article about Charlotte's new light rail line on opening day:

http://lightrailnow.org/news/n_cha_2007-11a.htm

Predicted 9,000 riders/day; on opening day had 60,000 riders.
People in the USA are really sick of getting stuck in traffic and having to drive everywhere.

^alexjon,
As a somewhat relevant point to add to what you say, there is a factor in ridership projections known as "rail bias": a quantifiable increase in the number of riders of a transit service based solely on it being rail rather than bus, all else equal. Usually it's not so drastic, but it's enough to occasioanlly have some impact on a mode decision for a transit route (e.g. Houston building out their system as LRT instead of BRT)

I think it's a much larger factor than you think. In Portland, we had a bus replaced by a light-rail line running in the median of a street. The train tripled the ridership immediately after opening, and is still growing ridership... even though the light rail line is about 3 miles shorter than the old bus line, which used to connect to another city.


One of the biggest advantages rail has over buses is their operating costs:

1) trains last much, much longer than buses. 30-50 years is a pretty common lifespan.
2) trains carry more people than a bus, so you don't need as many operators. In countries with a high standard of living, personnel wages trump even major capital costs for construction. For instance, Portland has built almost $2 billion worth of light rail lines (over 20 years), yet our annual operating expense is $1 billion.
3) Our major bus streets fall apart after only 10 years and need major repaving - train tracks can last easily 20 years before any maintenance needs to be done. But you can't have a BRT or real rapid transit without dedicated right of way.


http://lightrailnow.org/images02/la-bus-brt-orangeline-paveway-rutted-worn-20060927-0835x2_lh.jpg
LA Orange Line busway - pavement deterioration (this affects how bumpy your ride will be)

http://lightrailnow.org/images02/pit-bus-brt-busway-accident-19950100_ap.jpg
Collision of two buses on a dedicated busway. Oncoming collisions don't happen on double-tracked light rail lines.

Although it is obviously biased, lightrailnow (http://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm) website points out some issues BRT has and attacks claims on BRT's supposed superiority.

[VivaLFuego]

Article about Charlotte's new light rail line on opening day:

http://lightrailnow.org/news/n_cha_2007-11a.htm

Predicted 9,000 riders/day; on opening day had 60,000 riders.
People in the USA are really sick of getting stuck in traffic and having to drive everywhere.

New systems usually have a large boost the first few months of people trying it out. Let's see where the ridership ends up in a year or 2. If it's averaging greater than about 30,000/day, I'll gladly eat crow; I'd love it to be successful, but I'm quite skeptical.

[M1EK]

Building and maintaining a BRT ROW is much cheaper than an electrified rail ROW. Power distribution, signalling, ballast, track components.....all much more capital and maintenance intensive than pavement.

Then why is it that practically every promised implementation of BRT in this country ends up without reserved right-of-way?

Doing BRT _right_ is almost as expensive as LRT. Roads still need to be reconfigured; the roadbed should be built as concrete (not asphalt) - which means LRT-style reconstruction; stations should be built in the median; etc. The capital costs of rail and electric wires pale in comparison to all that.

[lrt's friend]

The lightrailnow website is obviously biased towards rail. You need to be conscious of this and weigh the information with a grain of salt. The story about the bus head on collision can be easily countered by terrorist attacks on rail in London and Madrid. Derailments are also possible. If an accident does happen and your rail line is blocked, your rail system shuts down. If there is a blackout, like in August 2003, your electric rail system also shuts down. I do like LRT but in all fairness, there has to be fair exposure of all the pros and cons.

Whether it is bus or rail, exclusive ROWs are very expensive to build. What is best will be determined by the specifics of the location. Cost comparisons can only be identified in each particular case.

[alexjon]

Comparing an operational flaw to an extraordinary situation defies logic, especially in this case.

Furthermore, outside of catastrophic situations, rail lines generally can be supplemented by emergency shuttle services, as happens in Portland.

I also direct your attention to BART and their recovery times during earthquakes.

LRT is in a very clear advantage in most operational situations that you've described since it's not in-kind to the majority mode of transportation and can therefore be alternated to emergency service, especially in places where a light rail line has replaced a bus line.

If LRT shuts down, you have roads as an alternative-- but if the buses shut down, you have... um... walking?

[VivaLFuego]

Then why is it that practically every promised implementation of BRT in this country ends up without reserved right-of-way?

Doing BRT _right_ is almost as expensive as LRT. Roads still need to be reconfigured; the roadbed should be built as concrete (not asphalt) - which means LRT-style reconstruction; stations should be built in the median; etc. The capital costs of rail and electric wires pale in comparison to all that.

You're right that many supposedly "BRT" implementations fall short; but of course, many LRT implementations do too (like the street-running systems that occasionally have to stop at stop lights and further have speed restricted to 35-mph in shared traffic conditions). I think we can agree that the relative capital costs will vary significantly depending on exact location. Even within a single corridor, two different alignments might be better (and more cost-efficiently) served by either local bus, BRT, LRT, or HRT. Obviously, if there are little to no ROW acquisition costs (either purchasing freight ROW or acquiring private property), that helps a particular mode/alignment tremendously in cost-effectiveness.

[lrt's friend]

If buses shut down? tell me how that works. Realistically, other than a strike and horrendous weather conditions, which may affect rail as well, what possible circumstance would shut down an entire bus system that would leave rail intact?

[lrt's friend]

There is one clear cost advantage for BRT over LRT. This occurs when you can create a dedicated bus lane on an expressway. There are examples in our transit network. There is no possibility of conversion of those lanes to LRT for safety reasons. You cannot operate LRT in high speed mixed traffic. You cannot have the possibility of a car swerving into a LRT lane or a car breaking down in the LRT lane. In those cases, LRT would need a fully separated right of way, which would inevitably cost much more to build.

[alexjon]

If buses shut down? tell me how that works. Realistically, other than a strike and horrendous weather conditions, which may affect rail as well, what possible circumstance would shut down an entire bus system that would leave rail intact?

Weather, traffic problems, strikes, earthquakes damaging major road structures, etc.

And it doesn't have to be an entire bus system-- in some cities, the buses rely on pass-thrus in the central city to maintain quality service. If something happened in the central city, it could seriously damage bus service.

And as far as your point to making dedicated ROWs for LRT in freeways, obviously you've forgotten Denver, and, to a lesser-extent, Portland.

Actually, a lot of major cities mix traffic like that!

[Wright Concept]

... I think in cases like Dallas and even some of the Los Angeles routes (Green, for example) it was clearly unjustified, seeing as the construction of the light rail meant a reduction in the quantity bus service and actually resulted in overall reduction in transit ridership.


Just FYI, The Green Line was built because they were building the 105 Freeway and were ripping out minority and middle class homes in order to build the right-of-way for the freeway. As a legal mandate, they had to build a transit right-of-way in the median.

At the time, the destination of the Green Line were large Aerospace complexes and companies supplying what was needed during the Cold War. A lot of those workers lived along the alignment. By 1990 rolled around a recession, disappearing Cold War industry and the changing demographic shift that would have worked at those jobs at the Aerospace companies along the alignment took out the potential of the 75,000 riders a day that would use this line. It's hovering between 35,000 to 40,000 riders a day now, which ain't bad considering it doesn't reach LAX nor a busy intercity Amtrak station just 2.0 miles east or a major retail and commercial center just 2.0 miles to the south.

Then again, you could be refering to the Gold Line, which it's ridership has increased of late to 22-23,000 riders a day. Now this number would have been doubled if this line went directly into Downtown LA like the busier Blue Line LRT because it would actually offer a time competative trip with the Auto serving CBD and Staples Center events which makes traffic just horrible along the 110 freeway.

[miketoronto]

As for your general comments about LRT - it betrays a very common misconception among people ill-informed about transit - that simply providing an option will attract people to use its capacity. A bad option, like city bus, won't attract anybody away from better options, like their cars. Light rail can and does.



A transit systems need a balance of rail and bus. That being said, who says a bus won't attract?

At the end of the day, people will take transit if it is fast, and operates a good service.
That is why Ottawa mostly bus only system has higher ridership then many cities with LRT.
As long as it is rapid transit, people will take it as long as it is fast, which some busways like Ottawa's are.

Infact, there are situations where rail transit has not improved ridership and actually seen ridership decline. For example, Portland's eastern suburbs use to be served by an express bus system that took half the time to get people downtown compard to the LRT that replaced those buses. When the buses stopped, many people started driving, because the LRT was to slow.

So you gotta watch out. Just because something is LRT does not mean it is faster and better then a bus. LRT has to be designed right.

So provide a good service and people will use it. I ride packed subway trains everyday :) But I have also rode packed express buses full of business people. And why are they on the bus and not the subway? Because the bus provides a faster option and more direct service for some people.

So you gotta have both :)

[VivaLFuego]

Just FYI, The Green Line was built because they were building the 105 Freeway and were ripping out minority and middle class homes in order to build the right-of-way for the freeway. As a legal mandate, they had to build a transit right-of-way in the median.

At the time, the destination of the Green Line were large Aerospace complexes and companies supplying what was needed during the Cold War. A lot of those workers lived along the alignment. By 1990 rolled around a recession, disappearing Cold War industry and the changing demographic shift that would have worked at those jobs at the Aerospace companies along the alignment took out the potential of the 75,000 riders a day that would use this line. It's hovering between 35,000 to 40,000 riders a day now, which ain't bad considering it doesn't reach LAX nor a busy intercity Amtrak station just 2.0 miles east or a major retail and commercial center just 2.0 miles to the south.

Then again, you could be refering to the Gold Line, which it's ridership has increased of late to 22-23,000 riders a day. Now this number would have been doubled if this line went directly into Downtown LA like the busier Blue Line LRT because it would actually offer a time competative trip with the Auto serving CBD and Staples Center events which makes traffic just horrible along the 110 freeway.
Touche; I wasn't following things too closely when the Green Line was in the planning stages (I was younger then), it's possible there was once the trip density and it fell off (that phenomenon is why so much of Chicago's L system was torn down over the years).

So the Gold Line.......
23,000 riders per day
13.7 miles in length
capital construction cost: $860 million

So, some ratios:
1679 riders per route mile
$37,391 capital cost per daily ride
(Of course, a roundtrip rider would account for 2 of the rides....so adjust ratios accordingly for the commuters)

I'll let those ratios speak for themselves.

It should improve if it's ever better integrated with DTLA as you suggested, but still....for each of those daily rides, you could have just bought each rider a new a car every few years for a similar capital outlay....

[Wright Concept]

Touche; I wasn't following things too closely when the Green Line was in the planning stages (I was younger then), it's possible there was once the trip density and it fell off (that phenomenon is why so much of Chicago's L system was torn down over the years).

So the Gold Line.......
23,000 riders per day
13.7 miles in length
capital construction cost: $860 million

So, some ratios:
1679 riders per route mile
$37,391 capital cost per daily ride
(Of course, a roundtrip rider would account for 2 of the rides....so adjust ratios accordingly for the commuters)

I'll let those ratios speak for themselves.

It should improve if it's ever better integrated with DTLA as you suggested, but still....for each of those daily rides, you could have just bought each rider a new a car every few years for a similar capital outlay....


Wow, that would mean LA would never help to give alternatives to their residents and they would be forced to move to Chicago. :jester: J/K Hehehe

As an additional sidenote, the 401-402 and 483 express service that Gold Line replaced only at it's highest ridership years and with frequent service had only 3,500 riders a day. Before the Blue Line, it's parallel Express and local routes carried 5,000 riders a day, now it's one of the busiest LRT's in the country.

[lrt's friend]

Weather, traffic problems, strikes, earthquakes damaging major road structures, etc.

And it doesn't have to be an entire bus system-- in some cities, the buses rely on pass-thrus in the central city to maintain quality service. If something happened in the central city, it could seriously damage bus service.

Come on, your first statement if rail shuts down, you have roads. If buses shut down, you walk. It takes very extreme situations for a whole bus system to shut down and rail is equally vulnerable in almost all of those cases.

In the case of earthquakes, rail is more vulnerable. Buses can be rerouted around trouble spots. If rail is damaged, the system simply shuts down.

Weather, I will give an advantage to rail during winter storms, however that is not guaranteed. In 1999, it was Toronto's subways that shutdown during a snowstorm, and not the buses. This was a matter of civic embarrassment. In our own city, we can be thankful that we are no longer dependent on streetcars. A key intersection that was part of the streetcar network has been closed to all traffic for weeks because of an accident that damaged a building at that intersection. Buses continue to operate without delay by rerouting. Streetcars service would simply be blocked. There was well known story in local streetcar history where the whole streetcar network shutdown for days because the rails froze up. This would have never happened with buses.

In the case of strikes, buses and trains are equally vulnerable.

Traffic conditions will not shutdown an entire bus system. Buses may be delayed but your argument was about a shutdown. Rail on the other hand will shut down if the rail is blocked for any reason.

Those emergency buses used when there is rail shutdown are being taken out of service from other parts of the city. It is not like this is not having an impact on the transit system.

And as far as your point to making dedicated ROWs for LRT in freeways, obviously you've forgotten Denver, and, to a lesser-extent, Portland.

There is a very big cost difference between adding a freeway lane designated for buses (an HOV lane for buses only) as compared to building a LRT ROW in the freeway median or next to the freeway.

[lrt's friend]

A bad option, like city bus, won't attract anybody away from better options, like their cars. Light rail can and does.

Not true. Our express bus system eliminating transfers to reach downtown and busways to move people faster attracted thousands to transit and ridership is growing despite municipal funding constraints. If you move people quickly to their destination, people will use it especially as traffic congestion worsens and if you don't allow unlimited free parking in your downtown area.

[Cambridgite]

http://www.saveourgreenspace.ca/Turtle%20protesters.bmp

Uggghhh....hippies. :yuck: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"Save the turtles! Stop mass transit and drive on this road instead! Your millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions will do less environmental damage than running over 2 turtles per year that would be run over by cars anyway!"......"Yay, you're stupid and listening to me. Boy, my cause sure is important!" :P

By the way, when the girl is wearing a turtle shell and shaking whatever the hell those instruments are, it just makes their campaign that much more effective.

[zilfondel]

Come on, your first statement if rail shuts down, you have roads. If buses shut down, you walk. It takes very extreme situations for a whole bus system to shut down and rail is equally vulnerable in almost all of those cases.

In the case of earthquakes, rail is more vulnerable. Buses can be rerouted around trouble spots. If rail is damaged, the system simply shuts down.

Weather, I will give an advantage to rail during winter storms, however that is not guaranteed. In 1999, it was Toronto's subways that shutdown during a snowstorm, and not the buses.

In the case of strikes, buses and trains are equally vulnerable.


I wouldn't be making general sweeping statements about such things, as they really depend on the situation. Yea, of electricity goes out like it did on the east coast a couple years ago, all bets are off.

But trains have access to heated rails to prevent freezing, allowing normal-speed operations, whereas buses might have to be put on snow routes. BART has withstood many earthquakes with no problems - tunnels are more earthquake proof than bridges. Course, that's engineering, and you could easily spend as much money on your bus infrastructure as your rail...

A transit systems need a balance of rail and bus. That being said, who says a bus won't attract?

Infact, there are situations where rail transit has not improved ridership and actually seen ridership decline. For example, Portland's eastern suburbs use to be served by an express bus system that took half the time to get people downtown compard to the LRT that replaced those buses. When the buses stopped, many people started driving, because the LRT was to slow.

You're right - buses and trains are both important.

Portland's Eastside MAX to Gresham is a bad example - it has added many more riders than it eliminated from its express bus system. Also, it runs incredibly fast (55 mph) and the stations are very far apart. I haven't heard one complaint from anyone in 10 years about that particular MAX line being slow. And it averages 35,000 riders/day for a line that only cost $214 million (15 miles double-tracked).

I think its the express bus service to the WEST side that was eliminated for the MAX is what you're talking about - the light-rail trains take quite awhile to travel the entire distance, which also parallels a freeway. But let me tell you, I wouldn't want to sit on a freeway in Portland during rush-hour. Been there, done that. We're going to have today's Seattle Metro population in 20 years... and 1 hour to drive 5-8 miles is ludicrous!

[lrt's friend]

Portland's transit based on LRT is good (I have used it) but Ottawa is still doing better with a bus based system.

Latest figures I could find

Portland region population - about 1.6 M transit ridership 105M

Ottawa region population - about 1.1 M transit ridership 111M

Conclusion - it is possible to have a successful transit system based on buses.

In saying this, we are looking forward to moving towards adding rail to our transit network because it now makes sense. Our downtown bus system has reached capacity and it will likely be cheaper to build a rail tunnel rather than a bus tunnel. This will be confirmed over the next year or so.

Choosing whether buses or LRT is best will depend on a complex set of factors based on individual situations.

But trains have access to heated rails to prevent freezing, allowing normal-speed operations, whereas buses might have to be put on snow routes.

This truly sounds like somebody who lives in a mild climate. This is a snowy area, and we have to put up with the stuff for 4 months of the year, yet I have never heard of the term "snow routes".

[M1EK]

You're right that many supposedly "BRT" implementations fall short; but of course, many LRT implementations do too (like the street-running systems that occasionally have to stop at stop lights and further have speed restricted to 35-mph in shared traffic conditions). I think we can agree that the relative capital costs will vary significantly depending on exact location. Even within a single corridor, two different alignments might be better (and more cost-efficiently) served by either local bus, BRT, LRT, or HRT. Obviously, if there are little to no ROW acquisition costs (either purchasing freight ROW or acquiring private property), that helps a particular mode/alignment tremendously in cost-effectiveness.

I think we can look at the real world and realize that BRT has done absolutely nothing of use outside Curitiba (where the government had Stalinist powers over redevelopment). LRT has worked in the overwhelming majority of installations in the USA; BRT hasn't done squat. At some point, you have to wonder if the failure to obtain reserved right-of-way is a fundamental flaw in the theory rather than just the implementations.

[M1EK]

Not true. Our express bus system eliminating transfers to reach downtown and busways to move people faster attracted thousands to transit and ridership is growing despite municipal funding constraints. If you move people quickly to their destination, people will use it especially as traffic congestion worsens and if you don't allow unlimited free parking in your downtown area.

"city bus" was used on purpose instead of "bus" and means "bus with no dedicated right-of-way or signal prioritization". If you're using busways, you aren't running "city bus".

[miketoronto]

lrt's friend your Ottawa Portland figures are a little off. You lncluded Ottawa's population as 1.1 million. That includes the Hull side of the Metro Region, so you have to add the STO'S ridership ontop of the 111 for OC Transpo. If you were to just count OC TRANSPO, then the pop would be around 800,000, which shows how much more impressive the ridership is.

[lrt's friend]

Sorry Mike. I had thought of STO. The STO figures are included. 95M for OC Transpo, 16M for STO.

Interesting reading about STO. They have experienced a 50% ridership increase since 1995 with a 'city bus' only system. Now they are about to begin construction of a exclusive bus ROW and are hoping ridership will grow to 21M. I believe that interprovincial and federal politics preventing the construction of a new road bridge across the Ottawa River is helping. Opening new roads hurts transit ridership by making it more convenient to use your car.

[miketoronto]

STO is growing, because they are providing a good bus service that gets people where they need to go.
Last year STO did an entire redo of their bus network, providing an express bus from every neighbourhood to downtown Hull and Downtown Ottawa. They also improved crosstown bus service, etc.

By offering fast service, they can attract people.

[lrt's friend]

STO fortunately didn't have to face the Harris "Common-Sense Revolution", which essentially had the Ontario government pull out of transit funding. Only now, are Ontario cities finally getting back on track with a more supportive provincial government.

If you read Harry Gow's article on the lightrailnow website, he is highly critical of Ottawa's busways. You have to understand that he is strictly a rail advocate and that the article is very slanted. Funny things happen though. Mr. Gow's rail group were instrumental in having Ottawa's LRT project cancelled a year ago. Even today, they are agitating against the latest $2B LRT/bus transit expansion project. Go Figure! Of course, they have their own pet ideas, which they refuse to amend based on public input.

[Justin10000]

It's a rail advocate site.

What do you expect?

Go to gobrt.com, and there are article stating that Buses are less polluting than electric rail!

You'll always find bias when dealing with advocacy sites.

[Wright Concept]

I think we can look at the real world and realize that BRT has done absolutely nothing of use outside Curitiba (where the government had Stalinist powers over redevelopment). LRT has worked in the overwhelming majority of installations in the USA; BRT hasn't done squat. At some point, you have to wonder if the failure to obtain reserved right-of-way is a fundamental flaw in the theory rather than just the implementations.

I think you highlighted something earlier in regards to capital costs, capacity and how the density patterns are designed.

With BRT nowadays, they've used the approach of think Rail and use buses. By the time you build the neccessary infrastructure to build a high speed BRT, with wider lanes and shoulders it's costs does equal that of slightly higher grade LRT and inching close to HRT $$$ with a higher overall operating cost if the bus load is very full and a lot of real estate for very large terminal facitilies to handle all of those buses.

I think the construction technology of BRT needs to be upgraded to take that mantra of Think Rail but use buses to a new parameter. The BRT projects that worked were the track-guided ones where depending on the propulsion, the buses can be "trained" and run along an L shaped guideway operating on very high speeds because of the small horizontal wheels give good traction and horizontal stability significantly reducing operating ROW widths and with the concrete curb and lanes give a significantly smoother ride.

[Doady]

lrt's friend your Ottawa Portland figures are a little off. You lncluded Ottawa's population as 1.1 million. That includes the Hull side of the Metro Region, so you have to add the STO'S ridership ontop of the 111 for OC Transpo. If you were to just count OC TRANSPO, then the pop would be around 800,000, which shows how much more impressive the ridership is.

And of course you don't point out that Ottawa's transit ridership numbers are counted a different way than Portland's and therefore Portland's is inflated.

Of course whenever I post unlinked trips for all cities to make it fair for Canadian cities when comparing to American cities, you constantly complain. But when someone uses it in a comparison that is unfair to a Canadian city, you don't say a word about it. I find that extremely annoying.

If you want to properly compare Ottawa to an American city, the ridership is actually around 150 million.

[alexjon]

Portland's transit based on LRT is good (I have used it) but Ottawa is still doing better with a bus based system.

Latest figures I could find

Portland region population - about 1.6 M transit ridership 105M

Ottawa region population - about 1.1 M transit ridership 111M

Conclusion - it is possible to have a successful transit system based on buses.

You need to study up on Portland more.

First off, the most densely populated area of town is exclusively served by buses and bike routes.

Secondly, you don't realize that lots of Portlanders ride bikes.

Third, you forget that ridership does not indicate success, it indicates need. How many of the people in your region aren't having their needs met?

Obviously if rail is being brought in, then there's a pretty good chance that people see buses as insufficient.

[VivaLFuego]

Wow, that would mean LA would never help to give alternatives to their residents and they would be forced to move to Chicago. :jester: J/K Hehehe

As an additional sidenote, the 401-402 and 483 express service that Gold Line replaced only at it's highest ridership years and with frequent service had only 3,500 riders a day. Before the Blue Line, it's parallel Express and local routes carried 5,000 riders a day, now it's one of the busiest LRT's in the country.

Chicago's not immune from this either of course :) We recently spent $500 million to rebuild a line with a ballpark of about 20,000 daily riders, which followed about $400 million on a line with around 30,000. (thought at least they was followed up with $500 million on a line with about 100,000 daily riders and $250 million on a line with about 75K)

How did those express buses compare in frequency and travel time to the new LRT? How were the station facilities/shelters? Of course there will be a rail bias reflected in ridership, but even express bus isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison to LRT. The ~$800 million capital cost could have done an incredible amount in terms of signal priority, queue jumping, upgraded express bus facilities, sweetass new BRT vehicles, etc....not just in the one corridor, but in several in the region. I don't know how those numbers would ultimately play out, but the capital cost per Gold Line rider is just huuuuuuuge.

[BlackRedGold]

Secondly, you don't realize that lots of Portlanders ride bikes.

Who gives a crap about this? So what if they do? Ottawa leads Canadian cities in commuting to work by bike and walking.

Third, you forget that ridership does not indicate success, it indicates need. How many of the people in your region aren't having their needs met?


What is this supposed to mean? That people are too poor to own cars so they are forced to ride transit?

Considering Ottawa is one of the most affordable places to live among big cities based upon income levels, I think you need to learn more about Ottawa then other people need to learn about Portland.

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa has a small rail system, which is ultra modern looking. Ottawa will have a bigger rail system in the future. Nevertheless, Ottawa's bus system has been highly successful and hundreds of millions are about to spent to improve it further. Ottawa also has probably the largest bike path network in North America, at least for a city its size. Obviously, biking is not an option during winter, however Ottawa is probably the only city in the world that has ice skate commuters.

As I explained before, Ottawa's downtown geography is directing us towards rail for further transit expansion. It is not that people think 'buses' per se are insufficient, it is that the service needs to expand and this can only be done with rail. Downtown streets cannot handle more buses. There is certainly the 'cool' factor with modern LRT but there are many members of the public and on City Council who feel that LRT is too expensive. It comes down to a practical issue.

[alexjon]

Who gives a crap about this? So what if they do? Ottawa leads Canadian cities in commuting to work by bike and walking.

It's a transportation alternative that draws people living in the SE portion of town and working in the city center out of cars and transit, nudging the numbers quite a bit.

What is this supposed to mean? That people are too poor to own cars so they are forced to ride transit?

Considering Ottawa is one of the most affordable places to live among big cities based upon income levels, I think you need to learn more about Ottawa then other people need to learn about Portland.

No, that there are people who depend upon transit, like the elderly and the disabled. Teenagers, too. Those are riders, as well. If we were gauging success, I think a metric to be used would be how many areas are underserved in getting to the transit-dependent.

[emathias]

No, that there are people who depend upon transit, like the elderly and the disabled. Teenagers, too. Those are riders, as well. If we were gauging success, I think a metric to be used would be how many areas are underserved in getting to the transit-dependent.

We in American really, really, REALLY, need to stop looking at Transit as a social service agency. Transit in the U.S. should not give the elderly or the disabled any more weight in their decisions than an average private business does - that is to say that if serving them starts to exclude the ability to serve the majority of residents, then service to the disabled and elderly should either be cut or subsidized through the budget of a non-transit agency.

Before you go saying I'm cold and heartless, think about this: If serving disabled or elderly or even indigent riders becomes the priority at the expense of fast, reliable service, that means fewer and fewer people are able to live a life using only transit. Which in turn means more people will choose to live in auto-dependent environments. Which in turn means the disabled and elderly and indigent will be even worse off, because there will be so many places without any sort of non-car service.

In an environment where transit is already non-dominate and in most places losing ridership as a percentage of all trips even if gaining in raw numbers, the focus has to be first and foremost on fostering environments where the largest number of people possible can learn to live and enjoy life while relying on transit. If all transit is is a social service for the disadvantaged, it will never survive - it's too expensive of a solution for such a small submarket, it has to become a solution for the general public to survive.

[alexjon]

We in American really, really, REALLY, need to stop looking at Transit as a social service agency. Transit in the U.S. should not give the elderly or the disabled any more weight in their decisions than an average private business does - that is to say that if serving them starts to exclude the ability to serve the majority of residents, then service to the disabled and elderly should either be cut or subsidized through the budget of a non-transit agency.

Before you go saying I'm cold and heartless, think about this: If serving disabled or elderly or even indigent riders becomes the priority at the expense of fast, reliable service, that means fewer and fewer people are able to live a life using only transit. Which in turn means more people will choose to live in auto-dependent environments. Which in turn means the disabled and elderly and indigent will be even worse off, because there will be so many places without any sort of non-car service.

In an environment where transit is already non-dominate and in most places losing ridership as a percentage of all trips even if gaining in raw numbers, the focus has to be first and foremost on fostering environments where the largest number of people possible can learn to live and enjoy life while relying on transit. If all transit is is a social service for the disadvantaged, it will never survive - it's too expensive of a solution for such a small submarket, it has to become a solution for the general public to survive.

That's why I said "a metric" rather than "THE metric"-- there are people, like myself, who can't drive due to inoperable vision problems. I've tried, been told not to, so we leave it at that.

Paratransit exists, and due to federal rules, it's pretty well-funded in most municipalities. There are so many places, however, that diminish its importance and you'll see paratransit buses parked and empty more often than not.

Further to this, we go to the side where teenagers and capable children are an untapped and underserved ridership base in cases where schools are often bypassed in routing due to traffic concerns. It happened in San Antonio, TX numerous times. Bus stops were blocks away from a big high school/middle school until people spoke up.

What I'm speaking to is the side where there are almost deliberate attempts at non-action for the underserved.

[Boris2k7]

emathias: public transit shouldn't be run like a private business. It's meant for the public as a whole, not just for business-class customers. Failing to take the disadvantaged into account who depend on transit is poor public policy. Instead of cutting funding for paratransit and raising fares, how about cutting funding for highways and interchanges instead?

[alexjon]

OK, this is turning into a clusterhump of "which city is better" proportions.

[LAofAnaheim]

Why are we doing a competition of buses v. light rail? Both work hand-in-hand. Your light rail journey will cover a greater distance, whereas, the bus is for short-distance journeys. I don't understand the point of this question.

[Beltliner]

Why are we doing a competition of buses v. light rail? Both work hand-in-hand. Your light rail journey will cover a greater distance, whereas, the bus is for short-distance journeys. I don't understand the point of this question.

It's all about finding the right tool for the job, folks. Moving a whole whack of passengers through a clearly defined corridor to a central location? Light rail is your answer. Feeding that corridor from widely dispersed suburbs? Offer a bus.

[miketoronto]

We are forgetting one reason why the bus may be a great option for cities like Ottawa, and why it just might be more better then LRT for many riders. And that reason is the cold climate. Ottawa's busways system allows a large majority of people to board a bus in their neighbourhood and ride transfer free to downtown.
In cold climates this means a lot :)

Ottawa's buses have to be doing something right, as Ottawa has a higher % of people who take transit to get to work, compared to Calgary, and Vancouver, which both have rail.

At the end of the day if the service gets people where they need to go, then people will use it.

As you can see, Ottawa's busway the TRANSITWAY looks very similar to LRT with stations.
http://www.masstransitmag.com/images/article/1177962203788_f3_2.jpg
Photo thanks to mass transit mag.

http://www.clearchanneloutdoor.ca/assets/images/transitpic2.gif
Photo thanks to Ottawatransit.ca

[Beltliner]

^^^ Mishka, sadis'. Buses have their uses, but a simple nodding acquaintance with a calculator and an eng pad will demonstrate to you that when you're dealing with the passenger volumes into downtown that Ottawa and Calgary both face, the capital investment in LRT more than repays itself in day-to-day operating costs.

[miketoronto]

The reason the Ottawa Transitway can not handle the loads downtown, is because the buses operate on regular streets, with only a bus lane. Downtown Ottawa needs a bus tunnel or a dedicated transit mall with nothing but buses.

Even if you have LRT, it would be the same situation if the LRT trains have to share the street with cars like the buses do.

[Beltliner]

No, seriously, Mishka--I cordially invite you to take a moment and crunch the numbers. I'm afraid I took a fellow poster to the cleaners here some time ago in putting BRT and LRT head-to-head, and for higher loads there is simply no contest. ;)

[zilfondel]

Apologies to everyone about the focus on Portalnd, but I gotta put some explanation as to why our rail numbers are pretty low in comparison to a non-American city (Ottawa?).

So here goes...

1) The initial 2 lines (Blue line) were built basically through farmland or next to a freeway to anticipate future growth. Farms do not act to generate a lot of ridership!*

2) The MAX runs extremely slowly through downtown: about 16 kph. It stops roughly every 200 meters (2-3 blocks). As a result, trying to use it to get crosstown is EXTREMELY slow (1:45 to go end-to-end).

3) Portland is a very low density city, and the MAX lines do not serve the most dense parts of it - the streetcars do.

4) The downtown core only contains about 10% of the regional jobs. The fact that so many people ride transit here is quite amazing, considering how spread out businesses are.


So why do people even bother riding transit in Portland? Well, the traffic is horrendous!


*this was intended to help shape future suburban growth... unfortunately, these routes were also deemed to generate some of the lowest ridership #s, but were cheaper to construct - and was done so as an alternative to a freeway. Later lines have connected to the airport - which has very low ridership (extremely short, serves only the airport and a new Ikea store/shopping mall) and another line (Yellow) that runs through a very low density neighborhood, racetrack, and suburban mini-convention center. Besides the downtown stops and the airport none of these are exactly high-ridership generating areas.

[jeremy_haak]

The reason the Ottawa Transitway can not handle the loads downtown, is because the buses operate on regular streets, with only a bus lane. Downtown Ottawa needs a bus tunnel or a dedicated transit mall with nothing but buses.

Even if you have LRT, it would be the same situation if the LRT trains have to share the street with cars like the buses do.

A bus mall isn't feasible in Ottawa due to several factors. A bus tunnel may be feasible, at an inflated cost, but the general consensus seems to be that Ottawa is in a position where it should be focusing on rail lines instead of the Transitway. While I personally believe that the Transitway has been a tremendous success by all transportation measures, it has been quite a failure when looking at its effects on development. In a debate between BRT and LRT, that's what is going to tip me towards LRT. I think scaled down BRT like the B-line routes in Vancouver are quite effective though.

[zilfondel]

We in American really, really, REALLY, need to stop looking at Transit as a social service agency. Transit in the U.S. should not give the elderly or the disabled any more weight in their decisions than an average private business does - that is to say that if serving them starts to exclude the ability to serve the majority of residents, then service to the disabled and elderly should either be cut or subsidized through the budget of a non-transit agency.

You may feel this way, but the federal ADA laws say that you are completely and totally wrong - accessibility is THE most important aspect of any design, only trumped by life-safety issues and liability issues.

What we should be doing is to stick all the elderly in giant retirement centers downtown next to a park so they can get out, walk, and get some physical activity.

Ironically, handicapped-accessibility (ADA) is one of light-rail's biggest strengths - low-floor curbside boarding mean wheelchairs and people who have a hard time walking can board quickly, easily, and safely.

I've never been on a BRT, but it seems to me that loading/unloading is always faster on trains, as they can pull closer to the curb (at exactly calculated distances) and have more (and larger) doors per car than a bus can.

[LAofAnaheim]

So...is the real arguement bus rapid transit v. light rail transit? Thus, it's not buses v. light rail. That's why this topic is confusing as heck.

[VivaLFuego]

^^^ Mishka, sadis'. Buses have their uses, but a simple nodding acquaintance with a calculator and an eng pad will demonstrate to you that when you're dealing with the passenger volumes into downtown that Ottawa and Calgary both face, the capital investment in LRT more than repays itself in day-to-day operating costs.

If passenger volumes are so high that the Light Rail's capacity are quickly overwhelmed, shouldn't a heavy rail metro line have been considered?

[Wright Concept]

If passenger volumes are so high that the Light Rail's capacity are quickly overwhelmed, shouldn't a heavy rail metro line have been considered?

Yes and No. Part of the reason is at least in Calgary's case is all they'll need is a Downtown Subway and extending their current LRT platforms to 5 car lengths and they'll have Heavy rail performance but the cost-effectiveness of Light rail.

In Ottawa's case, I wonder have they investigated any other street couplets nearby and ran added service on those, creating a stop gap until a full 4 lane transit mall or 4 lane bus subway is built.

[Boris2k7]

Plus, the original lines were built in the 1980's, 30 years after all the streetcars in the city were torn out, so I don't think the city could tell how popular LRT might have been. And the city has very limited funding too... we had to fight for provincial dollars (through a return on our education property tax) and there is no access to federal dollars like American cities have access to, except on an extreme and rare ad-hoc basis. I don't think Calgary has ever seen a cent of federal funding for transit. Most of those original lines were built during a recession and the city was desperately trying to balance its budget after the oil crash and at the same time preparing for the 88 Olympics.

[emathias]

emathias: public transit shouldn't be run like a private business. It's meant for the public as a whole, not just for business-class customers. Failing to take the disadvantaged into account who depend on transit is poor public policy. Instead of cutting funding for paratransit and raising fares, how about cutting funding for highways and interchanges instead?

You're spouting back the irrational and counter-productive bull that holds transit to a higher standard than vehicle travel.

Cars are not required to be wheel-chair friendly. Cars are not required to all have the capability to be driven without legs. Cars are not required to be elderly-capable. Roads are not required by the federal government to have sidewalks or crosswalks or a million other ADA-style things. And yet the government builds roads for the express purpose of accommodating cars, and the government can do that without the constraints of the ADA.

The ADA is misguided, foolish and counter-productive to serving the needs of society. By handicapping (pun not intended) public mass transit but mostly leaving alone private, personal transit, what did people think would happen?

Mass transit is more efficient and almost always more environmentally sound than private personal transit, so there are enormous societal benefits to being able to use it. Tying its hands behind its back in the competition with the less-regulated but more expensive (overall) and less environmentally sound private automobile is probably one of the worst domestic policy decisions in the past 30 years.

I'm not insensitive to the needs of the disadvantaged, but I'm don't think it's good policy to downplay the needs of the general public, either.

[Boris2k7]

Irrational and counter-productive bull?

Listen, bud. Your crap is just as ideological and far more insensitive. I don't care about the ADA (I had to look up what the hell you meant) but your points are totally misguided when it comes to public policy. People who are disadvantaged CAN'T use the car. If there is no transit, THEY HAVE NO MOBILITY, and providing wheelchair access is neither expensive or unwieldy. You must be insane to think that not having roads or sidewalks is essential to an efficient transit system (no sidewalks? only fucking hicktowns don't have them).

PUBLIC transit exists to serve EVERYONE. If it cannot do that, it is a FAILURE.

Competing with the car is important, but it should NOT override the reason that the tranist exists in the first place, that being to serve the public. It IS a failure to not serve a significant portion of the populace, it is NOT a failure to have to spend an additional 5 minutes on the bus because someone with a weelchair had to get on.

[jeremy_haak]

Yes and No. Part of the reason is at least in Calgary's case is all they'll need is a Downtown Subway and extending their current LRT platforms to 5 car lengths and they'll have Heavy rail performance but the cost-effectiveness of Light rail.

In Ottawa's case, I wonder have they investigated any other street couplets nearby and ran added service on those, creating a stop gap until a full 4 lane transit mall or 4 lane bus subway is built.

They did look at diverting some routes onto adjacent streets; however, the particular geography of Ottawa meant that it had limited utility. They are looking at certain solutions (technology to identify stopping order of buses as well as stop improvements) to improve the flow on the existing system.

[miketoronto]

That sounds like an excuse to me from the transit authority, about the geography. Downtown Ottawa is a grid street pattern. What is stopping them from diverting some buses onto a street one block away?

[BlackRedGold]

That sounds like an excuse to me from the transit authority, about the geography. Downtown Ottawa is a grid street pattern. What is stopping them from diverting some buses onto a street one block away?


The Rideau Canal.

You only have three bridges across it in the core. Diverting buses to a street over isn't going to help anything since the bridges will create a bottleneck. And building more bridges isn't an option either.

[lrt's friend]

Besides the canal, there is also an escarpment on the west side of downtown. All the streets that run down the escarpment are already used for buses. All the other streets end at the edge of a cliff.

[alexjon]

You're spouting back the irrational and counter-productive bull that holds transit to a higher standard than vehicle travel.

Cars are not required to be wheel-chair friendly. Cars are not required to all have the capability to be driven without legs. Cars are not required to be elderly-capable. Roads are not required by the federal government to have sidewalks or crosswalks or a million other ADA-style things. And yet the government builds roads for the express purpose of accommodating cars, and the government can do that without the constraints of the ADA.

Roads ARE required to have crosswalks in certain types of neighborhoods, that's what a ramped cut is for.

As far as cars go, they're for individual people, and as such, can be specially tailored. Buses and light rail vehicles are for many people, and the law of averages states that at some point, a disabled person will need service from such a vehicle.

[newboldphilly]

I don't understand this ADA argument. I haven't see any new buses in the US that aren't low-floor. All the new SEPTA buses have ramps that flip out to the curb as well as lower to function as a lift. In either case they're very quick.

That problem is more easily overcome in a BRT scenario where the "platform" can be raised a few inches to be level with the bus floor. The problem of the gap between bus and platform has already been overcome on several systems with the same rail device you've seen at automated car washes everywhere.
http://www.citytransport.info/OBahn.htm.

New tramways have been low-floor with gaps of a centimeter or a two for quite some time. I might run into a passenger requiring lift service on 1 in 20 rides. It's not really much of an inconvenience.

[jeremy_haak]

Regarding problems with the downtown Transitway capacity in Ottawa, here's a screen capture of a traffic camera directed toward the Transitway leading into the CBD. It is still bus-only here; however, it is no longer grade-separated. I'm sure you can imagine what the situation can be like in mixed traffic with more lights.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2023/2087487178_7f6dbe559d_o.jpg

[Justin10000]

A tunnel MIGHT help that. But to be honest, Ottawa really should just look at ways to reduce the number of buses, and routes converging in the CDB, rather then just putting them all underground.