[urbanactivistTX]

I know we've discussed this on the site before, but I just don't understand why BRT is so "unpopular" in most areas. Surely there are many cities around the world that would benefit from BRT.

So what are the advantages of a BRT system? What urban conditions would cause BRT to be a more viable transportation solution than light or heavy rail?

[WonderlandPark]

BRT is working great here in L.A. The Orange line, which could easily be LRT, is a solid success.

BRT has advantages when you can run it along, say, a freeway and then take multiple routes into a center city from the headway of the freeway. In a city like L.A. this makes alot of sense, being such a polycentric city. One of the oldest BRT routes is along the 10 freeway to El Monte. It was built before the BRT term even existed, but it does well with passengers.

[Cirrus]

You are under a bit of a misconception. BRT is fabulous. Nobody hates BRT. It's just that BRT isn't rail. It doesn't do the same things as rail and isn't appropriate in the same places as rail. To the extent rail proponents sometimes seem anti-BRT, it is because there are lot of people out there looking to spend less money on transit who think BRT can replace rail.

BRT is most appropriate where you have an existing road infrastructure (such as a highway), where you're not looking to move more than about 50,000 passengers per day at an absolute maximum, and where you're not concerned with inducing any land use changes or urban development. BRT-type improvements are also appropriate when you're looking to make regular bus service better in any way you can.

That El Monte busway in LA is really great if you want to move a bunch of commuters along a highway corridor. It's no good at all if you're trying to make LA look or function like New York.

[WonderlandPark]

LA will never function as NYC, as much as Dubai will never function as Tokyo.

As I said, the BRT functions well from the El Monte route because Metro uses the corridor for the long distances, then individual line branch from the headways of the freeway section to serve more destinations than LRT could do economically. LA is what it is. NYC it will never be. And that is fine.

[urbanactivistTX]

Among much of the public in my area (whom obviously don't understand BRT) it's pretty unpopular. From studying the better BRT systems, it seems like a great alternative for cities that aren't as dense as NYC or San Francisco.

[Cirrus]

Moving a bunch of commuters along an otherwise car-oriented highway corridor is a perfectly fine, valid purpose. There is nothing wrong with serving that need.

But yes, it is possible for any city of any size to be different, and rail can help make it so. Every city in the world is a product of planning decisions, regulations, and subsidies. Over time cities become whatever we make of them. If LA wanted to be like New York, it absolutely positively could be. It would take 100 years, but it would be totally possible. Now, I am not making any sort of value judgement here about whether the sort of change that rail can induce is necessary in any given city, but *if* you want that sort of change, then rail does things for you that buses simply cannot do.

By the way, there is not a single metropolitan area in the country that couldn't afford rail if it wanted it. A streetcar line costs about the same as a new high school. If your community can afford to build a high school, it can afford to build a streetcar. Now, you may have good reasons not to, but you absolutely *can*.

[DJM19]

BRT is working great here in L.A. The Orange line, which could easily be LRT, is a solid success.

BRT has advantages when you can run it along, say, a freeway and then take multiple routes into a center city from the headway of the freeway. In a city like L.A. this makes alot of sense, being such a polycentric city. One of the oldest BRT routes is along the 10 freeway to El Monte. It was built before the BRT term even existed, but it does well with passengers.

But at the same time all this means is that even in its infancy, the BRT has warn out its welcome and is undeserving the route. It needs replacing with LRT.

[202_Cyclist]

The latest issue of the Journal of Public Transportation has an article about bus rapid transit, "Bus Rapid Transit Features and Deployment Phases for U.S. Cities." (http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-2Galicia.pdf

"Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems are becoming popular in congested cities around the world. Since this mode of transportation is still evolving, there is a lack of clear definition of what constitutes a BRT system. This paper reviews the BRT systems around the world and characterizes their infrastructure and operational features. The most common features found are those that lead to travel time reduction or ridership attraction relative to regular bus services. However, not all the features must be implemented for a BRT system to be successful. Based on the features reviewed, this research recommends three sets of features that correspond to three phases of deployment in U.S. cities, depending on the project budget, time frame, users, and traffic and corridor characteristics."

[JDRCRASH]

Isn't there a plan to put even longer buses on the Orange Line?

[staff]

Xiamen has a very successful BRT system (from SSC):

10-20-2008 Xiamen, Fujian Province

厦门(厦门又名鹭岛、宋曰嘉禾屿、明曰中左所)是福建省下辖的一个副省级城市。邮政编码：361000，区号：0592。位于福建东南部，建城712年，是首批实行对外开放的经济特区之一。市内有鼓浪屿、集美学村、万石植物园等景点。厦门和金门对望，曾是国共双方距离最短的前线阵地，在两岸敌对期间曾经炮火连绵。厦门的市花是三角梅；市鸟为白鹭；市树为凤凰树。

Xiamen
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/03959B04.002C

highway
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395AC97.002C

Taxi
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395AD63.002C

Jetty building
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395B09C.002C

The city
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395B553.002C

BRT road
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395B62E.002C

residental highrises
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395B65B.002C

under-sea tunnel (U/C)
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395B84F.002C

BRT station
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BA0F.002C

BRT ticket counter
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BA71.002C

BRT all dedicated road
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BACB.002C

BRT bus (12m)
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BAE9.002C

in station
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BAFD.002C

look outside
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BB88.002C

outside BRT - Peony hotel
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BBF6.002C

Lianban area
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BC39.002C

BRT road
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BC58.002C

reaching railway station
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BC7B.002C

inside the BRT bus
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BCE2.002C

to Pier I
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BCFE.002C

Ads "Kinglong bus"
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BD32.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BD62.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BDAE.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BDE0.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BDF7.002C

station
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BE20.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BE62.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BE83.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BE8A.002C

map
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BE91.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BE9F.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BEAE.002C

BRT terminal
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BEB7.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BEFE.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BF61.002C

price
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BF6F.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BF83.002C

entrance
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BF93.002C

3rd floor
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BF9D.002C

Bus door and platform door
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BFAA.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BFB0.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BFBD.002C

Kinglong bus
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BFE2.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C008.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C095.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C09E.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C0A9.002C

The bus
http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C0C2.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C0C9.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C0D4.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C0FE.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C115.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C120.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C127.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395C14A.002C

http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/0395BEB7.002C
by 紫日, xinhuanet


more pictures
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8425/47744106em5.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/50/50854827ua0.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/416/71684695hn0.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6126/49990474na3.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1706/84862097wm2.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1645/99095490cf9.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2011/91322080pf3.jpg
(baidu.com)
¨

Map
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4058/7343brt118836b04tp2.jpg

[SnyderBock]

So how do you all rate this plan for a BRT line between Denver and Boulder?
The BRT is shown in green. The other parallel line shown in orange is the plan for a DMU commuter rail line. So the BRT serves the urban corridor with higher frequency and more stops. The DMU line serves the long haul commuters. I have mixed opinions about the plan. The BRT portion is being projected to have an efficient, cost effective, cost per passenger ratio (I think down below $8 per passenger if I recall). The DMU line is being projected to have an astronomical $41 per passenger cost to operate (though that can probably be lowered below $30 per passenger). It seems like a better solution should be sought, but I'm just not sure what. What do you think?

US 36 BRT Corridor (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/nm_2)
Vehicle Type: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Length (miles): 18
Stations: 6
Parking: 3,975 (existing), 4,393 (new)***
Capital Cost: $235.6M*
2030 Ridership: 16,900
Proposed Frequency of Service: 2 min (peak), 4 min (off-peak)
http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/images/uploads/us36/US_36_Corridor_Map.jpg
================================================================

Northwest Rail Corridor (http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/nw_1)
Vehicle Type: Commuter Rail - Diesel Multiple Units (DMU)
Length (miles): 41
Stations: 7 (rail)
Parking: 3,975 (existing), 4,393 (new)***
Capital Cost: $684.4M*
2030 Ridership: 8,600 - 10,100
Proposed Frequency of Service: 15 min (peak), 30 min (off-peak)
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb84/SnyderBock/2007-11_NWrailCorridorMap.jpg
=================================================================

In this map (provided by DenverInfill.com) (http://www.denverinfill.com/union_station.htm), on the right along 20th Street, you can see a viaduct coming into downtown Denver and branching off three ways. This is the dedicated, grade separated ROW the BRT line will use to come into Downtown Denver and serve Union Station and also branch off to other locations if needed.
http://www.denverinfill.com/images/subarea_aerials/union_station_2008-04.jpg

[electricron]

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) comes in many forms.

(1) Street running in designated or shared lanes much like a regular bus service, with longer buses and fewer bus stops is called rapid bus.

(2) Freeway running in shared or designated HOV lanes over most of its route, then in shared or designated lanes like (1) in downtown areas and suburban areas to park and ride lots. The buses could be tourist, metro, or longer buses. This is what most cities in the USA mean by BRT.

(3) Buses running in designated bus only lanes almost exclusively called busways. May or may not be grade separated. This is what many advocates consider to be true bus rapid transit. Usually busways are built so that they can be refurbished into guideways for light rail later.

The costs of any form of BRT depends upon how exclusive and how much grade separated the busway is? The effectiveness depends upon how attune the busway is to its environment.

[urbanactivistTX]

So how do you all rate this plan for a BRT line between Denver and Boulder?
The BRT is shown in green. The other parallel line shown in orange is the plan for a DMU commuter rail line. So the BRT serves the urban corridor with higher frequency and more stops. The DMU line serves the long haul commuters. I have mixed opinions about the plan. The BRT portion is being projected to have an efficient, cost effective, cost per passenger ratio (I think down below $8 per passenger if I recall). The DMU line is being projected to have an astronomical $41 per passenger cost to operate (though that can probably be lowered below $30 per passenger). It seems like a better solution should be sought, but I'm just not sure what. What do you think?


Wow thanks for the awesome pic links... I wasn't aware of how extensive Xiamen's BRT system is... do the routes cover a long distance, or are they shorter routes like Curitiba?
What's more awesome about this system is that if it ever needed to be converted to rail, it could be done at a fraction of the cost b/c the infrastructure is already in place. BRT seems to be a very good avenue for many American cities... but I think it's not as popular here b/c of "rail bias" that may not be as widespread in other areas.

[urbanactivistTX]

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) comes in many forms.

(1) Street running in designated or shared lanes much like a regular bus service, with longer buses and fewer bus stops is called rapid bus.

(2) Freeway running in shared or designated HOV lanes over most of its route, then in shared or designated lanes like (1) in downtown areas and suburban areas to park and ride lots. The buses could be tourist, metro, or longer buses. This is what most cities in the USA mean by BRT.

(3) Buses running in designated bus only lanes almost exclusively called busways. May or may not be grade separated. This is what many advocates consider to be true bus rapid transit. Usually busways are built so that they can be refurbished into guideways for light rail later.

The costs of any form of BRT depends upon how exclusive and how much grade separated the busway is? The effectiveness depends upon how attune the busway is to its environment.

Bingo... that is also what I would consider to be "true BRT"... a transitional system that establishes the precedent for a grade-separated transitway, and can be converted to rail when needed. Other systems are ok, but this would seems to be the "best fit" for many US cities looking to build their transit systems and increase ridership... ESPECIALLY in the Sunbelt. But clogging the existing HOV lanes is just not good enough... we need to provide more grade separation that runs along the freeways.

[Bootstrap Bill]

It looks nice, but why did they build such an elaborate system for BRT? Would a rail system have cost them much more?

Are they planning on upgrading to rail later on?



Xiamen has a very successful BRT system (from SSC):




¨

Map
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4058/7343brt118836b04tp2.jpg

[mhays]

Seattle has five HOV land based "sort of BRT" lines coming online from 2010 to 2013 -- stops once per mile, mostly prepaid, and with signal priority, but no raised platforms or sole-use lanes. Basically they're an incremental improvement over our common HOV-based and standard routes everywhere else. The BRT roultes have been funded by a voter-approved $50m increase in annual Metro (King County) bus service (also intended to provide other additions, though tax collections are severely behind) as well as federal grants.

The funny thing is, a later vote for Sound Transit's (separate regional org) successful $17b second package included light rail lines paralleling two of the five -- Sea-Tac to Federal Way and Bellevue to Redmond. The Aurora route to Shoreline is a ways from the UW-Northgate-Lynnwood rail expansion that it's not redundant. We've considered rail similar to two of the others lines as well (Ballard and West Seattle). It's not clear whether the BRT will remain when rail arrives on the two lines several years after BRT.

Even if rail makes BRT redundant, it's a good way to attract riders, who can convert to rail later.

[JDRCRASH]

Why not expand the monorail system?

[Cirrus]

Other systems are ok, but this would seems to be the "best fit" for many US cities looking to build their transit systems and increase ridershipNo doubt. The US has a lot of cities. Light rail is also the "best fit" for many of them, as are streetcars, surface buses, and commuter rail. There are even a couple of US cities out there whose biggest transit need is probably for new heavy subways. It all depends what you are trying to achieve, and the makeup of your city's existing infrastructure.

For example, the type of "true BRT" you cite as ideal is not very much less expensive than light rail, and is generally more expensive than streetcars. You're not saving much money, and if the idea is to convert it to rail later then that's almost certainly more expensive than just building rail right away. If your community is simply trying to save a few bucks, building that type of BRT system may well not be worth the headache. I don't mean to suggest that such BRT systems are useless; far from it. I only mean to suggest that if your thinking is along the lines of "well it's cheaper and easier and does the same thing", then sorry but it is just not that simple.

[SnyderBock]

I'm assuming many BRT proposals which go into EIS are initially envisioned as "true BRT," but in order to meet government cost effectiveness guidelines for qualification of federal funds, they end up recommending an alternative which is shared HOT/HOV lanes with actually (train-like) stations built and HOT/HOV passing lanes at each station so motorists using the HOT/HOV lanes can pass unimpeded.

As Cirrus mentioned, a truly dedicated ROW, BRT line built to the degree it is a LRT line without the tracks and caternary installed, ends up costing a significant amount of money. With tight budgets, they will almost surely look to cut costs as much as possible on any BRT to be built. If the budget weren't tight, they would be laying rail.

[llamaorama]

whose to say a planned BRT route couldn't having varying levels of infrastructure investment based on need, ie to bypass or avoid a major traffic bottleneck on surface streets, rather than needing them for an entire minimal operating segment?

[urbanactivistTX]

No doubt. The US has a lot of cities. Light rail is also the "best fit" for many of them, as are streetcars, surface buses, and commuter rail. There are even a couple of US cities out there whose biggest transit need is probably for new heavy subways. It all depends what you are trying to achieve, and the makeup of your city's existing infrastructure.

For example, the type of "true BRT" you cite as ideal is not very much less expensive than light rail, and is generally more expensive than streetcars. You're not saving much money, and if the idea is to convert it to rail later then that's almost certainly more expensive than just building rail right away. If your community is simply trying to save a few bucks, building that type of BRT system may well not be worth the headache. I don't mean to suggest that such BRT systems are useless; far from it. I only mean to suggest that if your thinking is along the lines of "well it's cheaper and easier and does the same thing", then sorry but it is just not that simple.

Yes, but if you're already doing a freeway upgrade or expansion, is the cost of inclusion for BRT really that much more?? I guess what's frustrating is that freeways are automatically looked at as an "investment"... if you build them, people, and money will come and new sprawl-neighborhoods will be created. It's seen as an automatic conclusion for most areas of the country. Which is why if someone proposes a new freeway extension, it has a much higher chance of getting built than any mass transit project (again for the MAJORITY of the country this is the case... the exception be a precious few cities). Yet with mass transit, it's a matter of practicality... you have to look at existing populations, and predict ridership, it has to actually make money. I wish that freeways and other major roadways were judged in the same way.

Given that this is the case, I'm going to have to research the cost difference between building a BRT system "correctly" and an LRT system. It may not be much, but I think most areas of the country would take either system if it's done right over a sub-par system just b/c it's rail.

[mwadswor]

In most cases I tend to agree that BRT looks like either a normal bus with some minor upgrades (signal prioritization, nicer stops with off-bus ticket machines, maybe a bit of dedicated lane, etc.) or a wannabe light rail. However, there is a major advantage to "true BRT" that hasn't been mentioned yet on this board. A train by definition runs on tracks and is only really useful for as far as you have built infrastructure for it. The dedicated/grade separated infrastructure for a true BRT line has the ability to substantially improve the single seat ride from lower density neighborhoods that don't justify mass transit into downtown.

You can provide feeder routes into light rail, but you can't hop a train off its tracks at the end of the line and run it through the neighborhood. Feeder routes require a transfer with rail. BRT does not have this limitation. You can use a bus as BRT where there is infrastructure built for it and then have it run like a conventional bus through the neighborhoods around the line. Essentially, you can use the busses as their own feeder routes into the BRT trunk line providing a single seat ride that is BRT through the congested parts of town.

I believe there are places where this is done, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Someone else can come up with examples.

[mwadswor]

As I think about it, is there a good reason why we don't use light rail coridors as dual use LRT/BRT routes? In places where the tracks actually look like railroad tracks with ties then the answer is obvious, but in places where the light rail runs in the middle of the road and is concreted in, there doesn't look like there's any reason that you can't run vehicles along it too. In Amsterdam I know they let emergency vehicles (that one seems like a no brainer everywhere, but I don't know of anywhere in the US where it's done) and taxis drive on the trolley tracks, so it obviously can be done.

Most light rail systems aren't used to capacity, is there any reason we couldn't run busses in the dedicated ROW too? That way we could do just what I said in my previous post: use the light rail for what it does best and use the deeicated infrastructure for more single seat BRT rides from lower density neighborhoods into downtown.

The idea makes sense in my head, I'm not sure if I'm articulating it well though. Does anyone know of any examples where something like this is done? I can't think of any. There might be a regulatory reason why it's not done in the US, but I don't think so because there are plenty of examples of where streetcars or light rail tracks share ROW with cars. I don't see a reason why it couldn't share ROW with only certain types of vehicles.

[Bootstrap Bill]

You can provide feeder routes into light rail, but you can't hop a train off its tracks at the end of the line and run it through the neighborhood.

Why not?

Take a look at what they're doing to pickup trucks.

http://blueslugs.com/wordpress/wp-content/walk0319railtruck.png

Why can't you scale this up to something the size of a bus?

[brickell]

I believe there are places where this is done, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Someone else can come up with examples.

Miami's South Dade Busway works a lot like this. Feeder lines from through South Dade converge on the busway for a beeline into Dadeland South Metrorail station.

While it does stop the buses from fighting heavy traffic along US1, I wouldn't go so far as to call it rapid transportation.

[SnyderBock]

I'm pretty sure running vehicles down the middle of LRT ROW would violate FRA-compliance. Besides, you argue that many LRT are not operating at full capacity, so then why divert their riders onto buses sharing the same corridor? if the LRT line passes capacity, they can simply add more cars to each train and extend the stations along the route and increase the frequency of service. No need to give railroad insurance companies headaches over buses running alongside 55-mph LRT's.

Also, with timed transfers, I see no issues with bus routes feeding into and out of LRT stations, to accommodate and serve the multitude of small destinations you argue BRT can better serve. People don't mind a quick transfer if the bus is right there waiting on them when they walk off the LRT train.

Did anyone have any thoughts on that Denver-Boulder proposed BRT line I posted about? I was wondering what everyone thought of that plan (The Good and the Bad).

[Cirrus]

if you're already doing a freeway upgrade or expansion, is the cost of inclusion for BRT really that much moreHighways are exactly the sort of places where BRT makes sense. The advantages of rail are limited in a highway median, and much of the busway infrastructure is already there (especially if you can use the HOV lane or the shoulder).

However, highways are generally terrible places for transit, regardless of mode. They will always be car oriented places, so the potential for transit is generally limited to whatever you can get from park and rides. No matter whether you're running trains or buses, you're always going to have a relatively low mode share. Any time you put transit in a highway median, you're working around the edges of travel in that corridor.

So yes, absolutely, put BRT on every highway corridor in your city. But put your serious transit corridors somewhere else. Regardless of mode, any city that uses its highway network as the primary spine of its transit network is a city with a bad transit network.

[mhays]

The post about half-measures being helpful is right. You can have a bus-only ramp to connect to a station or park-n-ride beside the freeway, but use basic lanes or HOV lanes on the freeway. Or you can run surface routes on regular streets, and collect them into a busway through downtown. When a route goes through a complicated freeway interchange, you can build a separate bus-only ramp through the whole thing. Lots of options. Maybe you get 50% of the benefit of true BRT but at 20% of the cost.

[mhays]

Yes, but if you're already doing a freeway upgrade or expansion, is the cost of inclusion for BRT really that much more?? I guess what's frustrating is that freeways are automatically looked at as an "investment"... if you build them, people, and money will come and new sprawl-neighborhoods will be created. It's seen as an automatic conclusion for most areas of the country. Which is why if someone proposes a new freeway extension, it has a much higher chance of getting built than any mass transit project (again for the MAJORITY of the country this is the case... the exception be a precious few cities). Yet with mass transit, it's a matter of practicality... you have to look at existing populations, and predict ridership, it has to actually make money. I wish that freeways and other major roadways were judged in the same way.


I disagree about "few". Many cities are adding significant rail, but most aren't adding significant freeways.

[waterloowarrior]

As I think about it, is there a good reason why we don't use light rail coridors as dual use LRT/BRT routes? In places where the tracks actually look like railroad tracks with ties then the answer is obvious, but in places where the light rail runs in the middle of the road and is concreted in, there doesn't look like there's any reason that you can't run vehicles along it too. In Amsterdam I know they let emergency vehicles (that one seems like a no brainer everywhere, but I don't know of anywhere in the US where it's done) and taxis drive on the trolley tracks, so it obviously can be done.

Most light rail systems aren't used to capacity, is there any reason we couldn't run busses in the dedicated ROW too? That way we could do just what I said in my previous post: use the light rail for what it does best and use the deeicated infrastructure for more single seat BRT rides from lower density neighborhoods into downtown.

The idea makes sense in my head, I'm not sure if I'm articulating it well though. Does anyone know of any examples where something like this is done? I can't think of any. There might be a regulatory reason why it's not done in the US, but I don't think so because there are plenty of examples of where streetcars or light rail tracks share ROW with cars. I don't see a reason why it couldn't share ROW with only certain types of vehicles.

Seattle Transit Tunnel has buses and LRT IIRC. Emergency vehicles use TTC right of way in Toronto.

[mhays]

Yes the Downtown Seattle tunnel has both rail and buses. That's a temporary measure until 2016 I think, when the next couple rail expansions will be complete, including the first north segment, which will reach the University of Washington. At that point, trains will presumably get exclusive use of the tunnel because they'll need it. The same line will be extended several more stops north and south in the years after that, plus a new eastern train that will use the same tunnel. At that point trains will keep the tunnel very busy all the time.

[1ajs]

winnipegs building a brt system here
http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/assets/62/7_-_Project_Plan_Thumbnail.jpg
http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/en/rapid-transit

[mrnyc]

downtown cleveland's 6.7-mile brt "healthline" hit it's one year anniversary:

Ridership: More than 3.1 million people have boarded the HealthLine’s Rapid Transit Vehicles (RTVs) since the service began. This is an increase of almost 50 percent for January-August 2009, when compared to the same months in 2008. In March, for example, HealthLine ridership topped 335,000 – a 75 percent increase over the 228,000 riders on the #6 bus the previous year.

Economic development: Despite a weak national and local economy, Euclid Avenue is still growing. Most of the major new construction in the City of Cleveland is either on, or within a few blocks of, HealthLine service.

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2009/10/GCRTA-s-BRT-hits-one-year-anniversary.aspx

more:
http://www.rtahealthline.com/

[Bootstrap Bill]

Yes the Downtown Seattle tunnel has both rail and buses. That's a temporary measure until 2016 I think, when the next couple rail expansions will be complete, including the first north segment, which will reach the University of Washington. At that point, trains will presumably get exclusive use of the tunnel because they'll need it. The same line will be extended several more stops north and south in the years after that, plus a new eastern train that will use the same tunnel. At that point trains will keep the tunnel very busy all the time.

Are there any plans for more downtown tunnels? The current tunnel is only 1.3 miles long. I know about the university exension, but that will mainly benefit students and staff of the university..

The underground looks interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground_Tour

Why couldn't Seattle turn it into something like Toronto's PATH? Is there enough room for both transit and an underground mall?

[deasine]

Are there any plans for more downtown tunnels? The current tunnel is only 1.3 miles long. I know about the university exension, but that will mainly benefit students and staff of the university..

The underground looks interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground_Tour

Why couldn't Seattle turn it into something like Toronto's PATH? Is there enough room for both transit and an underground mall?

I don't really think it's necessary to make the transit tunnel into a PATH. There are a lot of attractions in downtown as it stands.

Adding on to the fact about BRT converting to LRT in the future, BRTs are often used as a trial process to ensure that there is enough ridership for the route, or at least ridership potential.

[Bootstrap Bill]

I don't really think it's necessary to make the transit tunnel into a PATH. There are a lot of attractions in downtown as it stands.

Adding on to the fact about BRT converting to LRT in the future, BRTs are often used as a trial process to ensure that there is enough ridership for the route, or at least ridership potential.

I was referring to the Seattle Underground - could it be turned into something like the PATH?

[Doady]

You are under a bit of a misconception. BRT is fabulous. Nobody hates BRT. It's just that BRT isn't rail. It doesn't do the same things as rail and isn't appropriate in the same places as rail.

What exactly is "rail"?

The term "rail" can refer to a wide range of different transit services, from streetcars, to light rail, to metro, to commuter rail. Even within these differences, you can find even more differences still. So I find it amusing that you lump them all together and say BRT cannot do the same things as rail and isnt' as appropiate.

After all, "BRT" itself is a very broad term too, isn't it? And yet it is still far more specific term than "rail".

[deasine]

I was referring to the Seattle Underground - could it be turned into something like the PATH?

I know you were, but I don't see the need. And yes, space is an issue.

[Cirrus]

The term "rail" can refer to a wide range of different transit services, from streetcars, to light rail, to metro, to commuter rail. Even within these differences, you can find even more differences still.
True enough.

I find it amusing that you lump them all together and say BRT isnt' as appropiate.I said no such thing. I said they are appropriate at different times and in different places, depending on what you want to accomplish. Of course that is true of the various types of rail also. However, this thread is not about the differences between the various types of rail.

[Lakelander]

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) comes in many forms.

(3) Buses running in designated bus only lanes almost exclusively called busways. May or may not be grade separated. This is what many advocates consider to be true bus rapid transit. Usually busways are built so that they can be refurbished into guideways for light rail later.

The costs of any form of BRT depends upon how exclusive and how much grade separated the busway is? The effectiveness depends upon how attune the busway is to its environment.

Are there any completed examples of dedicated busways being converted to rail lines in the US?

[mhays]

Are there any plans for more downtown tunnels? The current tunnel is only 1.3 miles long. I know about the university exension, but that will mainly benefit students and staff of the university..

The underground looks interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground_Tour

Why couldn't Seattle turn it into something like Toronto's PATH? Is there enough room for both transit and an underground mall?

Downtown Seattle is heavily dependent on tunnels other than public transit. The main West Coast rail line is a deep tunnel for a mile through the CBD. This serves Amtrak as well as one of our two rush-hour-only commuter rail lines. Highway 99 is a tunnel for six blocks through Belltown. Interstate 5 has been covered, mostly, for 1/4 mile by our convention center and a park. Without these tunnels along with the "bus tunnel" that is now bus/rail, our narrow downtown wouldn't work well. It allows the surface streets to have a huge number of buses, which is critical since buses are still our main type of transit.

Highway 99, which also includes a viaduct on the waterfront, is slated to be replaced by a deep-bore, 2x2 lane tunnel of 9,100 feet. This is for pass-through traffic. Traffic headed into Downtown will lose some exits, but they'll simply hit surface streets a little sooner. I'm hugely in favor of this as a way to get pass-through traffic out of the way, vs. alternative ideas to either rely on surface streets (letting Downtown be dominated by traffic) or a replacement aerial option. More: http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2009/04/03/excited-about-99-tunnel/ and http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/

In terms of transit, we don't have more subways planned in Downtown, though we do have some that are elements of the various Sound Transit expansions. New light rail lines (or our "heavy light" rail) will simply use the same tunnel through the CBD. Personally, I'm hoping that we vote for another rail transit package in the next few years with another tunnel through the CBD, perhaps on Fourth Avenue. Maybe this would be lines to Ballard and West Seattle, with room for eventual lines through, say, Fremont/Greenwood/Lynnwood and the Duwamish River industrial valley and Kent Valley. But that's probably a lot more than a few years.

[Sir.Humphrey.Appleby]

Are there any completed examples of dedicated busways being converted to rail lines in the US?

Seattle, at least the downtown underground section.

[Lakelander]

downtown cleveland's 6.7-mile brt "healthline" hit it's one year anniversary:

Ridership: More than 3.1 million people have boarded the HealthLine’s Rapid Transit Vehicles (RTVs) since the service began. This is an increase of almost 50 percent for January-August 2009, when compared to the same months in 2008. In March, for example, HealthLine ridership topped 335,000 – a 75 percent increase over the 228,000 riders on the #6 bus the previous year.

Economic development: Despite a weak national and local economy, Euclid Avenue is still growing. Most of the major new construction in the City of Cleveland is either on, or within a few blocks of, HealthLine service.

http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2009/10/GCRTA-s-BRT-hits-one-year-anniversary.aspx

more:
http://www.rtahealthline.com/

I studied and toured this corridor this past summer. It is a stretch to say that this bus line is stimulating serious development along the Euclid corridor. With the vibrancy of University Circle and the medical centers based there, most of the recent medical and university related development would take place regardless. Also, the HealthLine is a pretty nice system, but it cost just as much as rail to construct.

From what I've seen, BRT works best when its designed and promoted for what it is....more efficient bus service. The problems and negativity comes when people try to promote it as an alternative to LRT. For example, one type of system will give you flexibility and the other will stimulate more transit friendly economic development. They are really different animals that bring different types of results.

[mhays]

Here's a big advantage to BRT, or one type: You can have regular bus lines spider webbing out to every neighborhood, but then have those routes gather along a "sort of brt" line on a main road. Everyone gets service within easy walking distance, but routes go at freeway speed into town, stopping at major nodes along the way.

[Lakelander]

Yes, this is the "flexibility" advantage. However, if you're looking to integrate transit investment with supportive land use to promote sustainable development, you're less likely to get it with this model. In the end, the best thing is to evaluate transit corridors individually and select modes that best meet the goals of the community along the corridor that it will serve. If developed right, you'll end up with a transit system that includes both rail and bus.

[urbanfan89]

It looks nice, but why did they build such an elaborate system for BRT? Would a rail system have cost them much more?

Are they planning on upgrading to rail later on?

This is such an obvious pork barrel project. Xiamen is the headquarters of King Long Bus Company, which is the largest manufacturer of buses in China. Chinese local governments are infamous for slanting the market towards local companies.

[twoNeurons]

This is such an obvious pork barrel project. Xiamen is the headquarters of King Long Bus Company, which is the largest manufacturer of buses in China. Chinese local governments are infamous for slanting the market towards local companies.

Interesting. Answers a few questions.

And to think... we wonder why Detroit doesn't have an expansive rapid transit system.

[Justin10000]

Here's a big advantage to BRT, or one type: You can have regular bus lines spider webbing out to every neighborhood, but then have those routes gather along a "sort of brt" line on a main road. Everyone gets service within easy walking distance, but routes go at freeway speed into town, stopping at major nodes along the way.

Ottawa uses that model for rush hour routes. some suburban routes are extended to the downtown core during rush hour so riders do not have to transfer at suburbam terminals.

One signifcant downside is you will inevitably run into bus congestion with many lines sharing one corridor, slowing down service. The obvious solution would be a bus tunnel, but then you would probably want to consider rail by then.

[Bootstrap Bill]

Interesting. Answers a few questions.

And to think... we wonder why Detroit doesn't have an expansive rapid transit system.

Have you seen Detroit lately? Time Magazine recently had a cover story about the current condition of Detroit.

I went through it about 20 years ago by bus and spent about a day wandering around. Much of the city reminded me of pictures I had seen of Beruit - block after block of burned out buildings - and I hear it's even worse today.

Though parts of it were really nice. The Renaissance Center was awesome. I liked the people mover. Too bad it was such a small system. They also had a network of elevated walkways linking many of their downtown buildings. I thought that was pretty neat.

[Marv95]

Not really BRT, but perhaps a prelude towards it in the near future:


http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=PressReleaseTo&PRESS_RELEASE_ID=2561

[Doady]

I said no such thing. I said they are appropriate at different times and in different places, depending on what you want to accomplish. Of course that is true of the various types of rail also. However, this thread is not about the differences between the various types of rail.

If you do not distinguish betwen variosu types of rail (and BRT from that matter), than comparisons between rail and BRT do not make sense.

Ottawa uses that model for rush hour routes. some suburban routes are extended to the downtown core during rush hour so riders do not have to transfer at suburbam terminals.

One signifcant downside is you will inevitably run into bus congestion with many lines sharing one corridor, slowing down service. The obvious solution would be a bus tunnel, but then you would probably want to consider rail by then.

It is not unique to BRT for there to be congestion where routes overlap, which is why some rail systems have corridors with multiple tracks. The NYC subway system is like this too, isn't it? New York has overlapping local and express services just like Ottawa. So Ottawa's BRT is actually more similar to the NYC subway than to any LRT system I know. The MUNI Metro is probably the closest LRT to the Ottawa BRT in North America. Again, this highlights the importance of distinguishing between different types of rail service when comparing BRT to rail.

Obviously BRT can work. After all, there isn't a single LRT-based transit system in North America that has better transit ridership than Ottawa. I think a bus tunnel is THE solution for Ottawa. Obviously their transit concept works as is, and LRT would make the system completely different from what it is now, which is not a good thing.

[lrt's friend]

Ottawa's plans for alleviating downtown BRT congestion have turned into one big fiasco, as the cost of a LRT tunnel spiralled out of control.

Originally, LRT was to complement the BRT Transitways by using current or former rail corridors, making a very good transit system even better. It was also going to be used as a planning tool in creating new transit friendly communities with rail stations within walking distance of many living in those new communities. Unfortunately, politicians intervened during an election year for their own personal gain and blew all these rather novel ideas out of the water.

A bus tunnel has been studied in the past but was considered too expensive at that time, but the political climate at the time of the last municipal election did not allow it to be considered again. Instead, there was an obsession with a LRT tunnel, which would not have benefitted most transit riders and has now led to what appears to be another dead end.

Ottawa's BRT success has occurred because the grade separated Transitways act as an expressway for buses between the suburbs and downtown, allowing a transfer free trip from door to door if you work downtown. Also, the transit system has creatively used portions of the Transitways to streamline cross-town bus routes, reducing transfers and increasing speed of service.

[TarHeelJ]

MARTA in Atlanta is in the process of aquiring right of way for two arterial BRT Express lines with queue-jumper lanes at the most congested intersections and a signal priority system at all intersections. The first one is scheduled to be completed by fall of 2010.

[Kingofthehill]

What a joke, what passes for 'BRT' nowadays...

And speaking as an Angelino, I find our Orange Line BRT to be largely un-usable; while frequencies are (generally) good, the buses are severely overcrowded and woefully overburdened. Not to mention that the bus comes to a complete halt (literally) when a wheelchair person boards...that and despite having it's own guideway, is STILL bumpy. It's really only a "success" when you consider what serviced the valley before.

[mwadswor]

What a joke, what passes for 'BRT' nowadays...

And speaking as an Angelino, I find our Orange Line BRT to be largely un-usable; while frequencies are (generally) good, the buses are severely overcrowded and woefully overburdened. Not to mention that the bus comes to a complete halt (literally) when a wheelchair person boards...that and despite having it's own guideway, is STILL bumpy. It's really only a "success" when you consider what serviced the valley before.

Wheelchairs seem to be a major issue on all busses. They are not brought up often in rail v bus debates, but they are probably one of the biggest categories that are virtually indisputably a rail advantage. On any bus I have ever been on wheelchairs bring the entire bus to a halt for several minutes to give the driver time to get up, get the wheelchair onto the bus, strap the wheelchair in, etc. and repeat the process when the wheelchairee wants to get off. I'm not saying this is the way it has to be, it's just the only way I've ever seen it done.

Does anyone know of any examples in use that make wheelchairs easier and quicker to load/unload onto busses? Without building platforms, getting the wheelchair onto the bus would probably be difficult to fix, but the strapping in process oftentimes seems to take much longer than it reasonably should. Why do wheelchairs have to be strapped into busses but not into rail cars? Is there anywhere that uses a quicker method of securing the chair?

[Bootstrap Bill]

Wheelchairs seem to be a major issue on all busses. They are not brought up often in rail v bus debates, but they are probably one of the biggest categories that are virtually indisputably a rail advantage. On any bus I have ever been on wheelchairs bring the entire bus to a halt for several minutes to give the driver time to get up, get the wheelchair onto the bus, strap the wheelchair in, etc. and repeat the process when the wheelchairee wants to get off. I'm not saying this is the way it has to be, it's just the only way I've ever seen it done.

Does anyone know of any examples in use that make wheelchairs easier and quicker to load/unload onto busses? Without building platforms, getting the wheelchair onto the bus would probably be difficult to fix, but the strapping in process oftentimes seems to take much longer than it reasonably should. Why do wheelchairs have to be strapped into busses but not into rail cars? Is there anywhere that uses a quicker method of securing the chair?

Very good point! This is going to get worse over the coming years as the baby boomers age and many of them use their mobility scooters on public transit.

[Kinguni]

Is there anywhere that uses a quicker method of securing the chair?

Wheelchairs don't take long here in Winnipeg, as long as the bus isn't packed already and the person with the wheelchair or their handler if they have one is reasonably adept. Drivers only assist if requested or if we figure we can speed loading by helping. Bus is knelt, ramp goes out, person wheels in, locks to the claw, away we go. Less than a minute in most cases, exception being when we have baby strollers or elderly people with walkers using the wheelchair area already. Then it takes a bit longer for them to shift around. At that even securing the chair isn't enforced here at the moment. The newer buses have a bumper pad on on side that a person in a wheelchair can buck up to instead, but no one ever uses it, plus there's an annoying pole sticking out of the floor that they have trouble getting around to get their chair in on that side.

No point judging what will be BRT here until the first section is in operation in 2 years. The dedicated roadway is short but will bypass 2 major areas of congestion. The problem will be that for the buses to get onto the BRT roadway they are going to have to negotiate downtown streets jammed with traffic, using (rush hour only) diamond lanes. The planned downtown routing has the BRT buses negotiating a couple of high traffic intersections with heavy pedestrian traffic too. It will be interesting to see if they can move the buses efficiently through these bottlenecks.

[mhays]

Even if it's one minute (i.e. quick), and ignoring the beeping noises that are required in the US and are sometimes audible two blocks away (grrrrr), wheelchairs are definitely a big disadvantage for buses. They hurt the schedule too much, and they contribute to bus jams.

[Doady]

I very rarely ever see people in wheelchairs use the bus. So it is hardly what I would call a "big disadvantage." Maybe at most 1 in 100 boardings do I personally see a person in a wheelchair. And 99% of the buses I board are low floor too. I just don't see how wheelchairs could have a significant effect on bus schedule.

For a bus with 50-70 minute long complete trip, even if every single trip had one wheelchair rider, two 1-2 minute delays to allow the wheelchair on and off is not going to throw the bus off schedule.

[mhays]

They're very common where I am. And the buses are mostly not low-floor.

[lrt's friend]

How in the world would a wheelchair get on a high-floor bus?

[urbanactivistTX]

Even if it's one minute (i.e. quick), and ignoring the beeping noises that are required in the US and are sometimes audible two blocks away (grrrrr), wheelchairs are definitely a big disadvantage for buses. They hurt the schedule too much, and they contribute to bus jams.

Certainly you don't mean to imply that people in wheelchairs shouldn't ride the bus. They have just as much of a right to transportation as anyone. And if we were to harm or interefere with their rights to ride the bus, it would cause great difficulty for all mass transit systems in the US.

But I do agree... with the levels of advanced technology that we've been able to create in mass transit, there should be some way to make wheelchair boarding faster and more convenient. It's astonishing how fast a bike boarding is compared to a wheelchair boarding.

Anyone from other countries... how do people in wheelchairs load the bus in your areas? Does the bus driver have to get out of his/her seat and strap the person in?

[ThreeHundred]

How in the world would a wheelchair get on a high-floor bus?

aw5KCmF6-Lg

[Justin10000]

Wheelchair lifts have been in use in the US for quite a long time.

[lrt's friend]

Why don't they just invest in low floor buses?

[Doady]

Low floor buses do tend have lower capacity than high floor buses, at least in North America, due to the space required for the wheel wells, which causes a reduction in seats. This problem is worse for 40 foot buses than articulated buses.

I am tempted to say that low floor light-rail vehicles are inherently better than low floor buses (and therefore LRT is better than BRT) for this reason. However, BRTs tend to use artics anyways, and good low floor bus designs do exist (e.g. in Europe), where there is no loss of capacity. Unfortunately, no Canadian manufacturers makes such a bus, as far as I know. Perhaps there is an alternative in America, but somehow I doubt it. I think bus designs are the real issue with BRTs in North America.