SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation & Infrastructure (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=228)
-   -   Bus Rapid Transit (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180215)

worldlyhaligonian Mar 31, 2010 3:54 AM

Bus Rapid Transit
 
Let's see if we can create a BRT plan using the railcut, etc via posts on here. This might end up being worth showing a politician.

Anything about BRT can go here and we can use this information to make inferences about the Halifax situation. (Costs, systems, routes...)

worldlyhaligonian Mar 31, 2010 3:57 AM

http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news_msg.php?titleid=4952

worldlyhaligonian Mar 31, 2010 4:01 AM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3265/...b64a7a87_o.jpg

worldlyhaligonian Mar 31, 2010 4:03 AM

http://images.travelpod.com/users/ro...lifax_rail.jpg

DigitalNinja Mar 31, 2010 4:06 AM

Xiamen, is one of the most beautiful cities in China, and it really shows in what they do. I wonder what the cost is for something which is raised like that? Probably quite a bit. I think the main factor with BRT and Halifax though is the lack of money. I would love to see something like this... Unfortunately during rush hours all of the main routes around the city are clogged. And I don't know where a raised road like that should go. I think using existing rail lines would be the best idea. A route going around each side of the peninsula until it gets to the boardwalk area would be cool, so it almost makes a circle but doesn't join, a bus could run in between them, or people could walk.

planarchy Mar 31, 2010 11:05 AM

Probably the best known system is in Curitiba, Brazil - which basically works like an above ground subway system -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rede_In..._de_Transporte

http://www.inf.ufpr.br/sibgrapi2004/...o-curitiba.jpg

This has been used as a model for similar systems in other South American cities - dense cities, with lack of financial resources for a subway. The system in Bogota, Columbia is another successful example of BRT.

fenwick16 Mar 31, 2010 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by planarchy (Post 4774272)
Probably the best known system is in Curitiba, Brazil - which basically works like an above ground subway system -

This has been used as a model for similar systems in other South American cities - dense cities, with lack of financial resources for a subway. The system in Bogota, Columbia is another successful example of BRT.

Good idea. Why not just have streets specifically for buses as above in planarchy's post? Take some of the narrow streets and use them specifically for buses without parking or bicycle lanes. And to eliminate the parking problem in downtown Halifax, have most of the parking outside the downtown core and have a very efficient shuttle bus system transporting people to their workplace. As in planarchy's post above, convert narrow streets to a BRT above ground subway-like system.

Good post, planarchy - very interesting.

PS: I can see why the free downtown shuttle was important for reducing traffic in the downtown core - maybe it can be re-implemented by getting downtown businesses and HRM council to cover the cost (who paid the cost before, was it entirely paid by the HRM?).

planarchy Mar 31, 2010 2:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenwick16 (Post 4774281)
Good idea. Why not just have streets specifically for buses as above in planarchy's post? Take some of the narrow streets and use them specifically for buses without parking or bicycle lanes. And to eliminate the parking problem in downtown Halifax, have most of the parking outside the downtown core and have a very efficient shuttle bus system transporting people to their workplace. As in planarchy's post above, convert narrow streets to a BRT above ground subway-like system.

What is also particularly interesting about this system (and one of the reasons why it is a success), is that they acknowledged the fact that for image reasons - some people will never take a bus. There is a stigma attached to bus travel that doesn't exist for trams, trains or metros. So they created raised round tube "stations" as bus stops , so that the loading platform is level with the entrance to the bus - so you no longer step up to get on the bus. As well, there is a turnstile to enter the "tube" so you pay before getting on the bus, similar to a subway.

http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/i...m_img_1985.jpg

Here is a link to some more photos of the bus stops - http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildi..._Stations.html

someone123 Mar 31, 2010 8:52 PM

The railcut is really not a good option. It's been a non-starter in terms of working with CN to use it and even if it were available it is not a good route. It's much longer than a route along Chebucto or Quinpool Road.

I think elevated routes are the way to go. They could be built in chunks to avoid bottlenecks and could be used for buses initially then converted for use by trains, or possibly run as a train system from the beginning.

I'd really like to see a breakdown of costs for a route like the Canada Line in Vancouver or light rail in Calgary or Edmonton. I'd love to know what it costs to, for example, run one kilometre of SkyTrain track down a highway median, versus dig a cut-and-cover tunnel, use a tunnel boring machine, or just run LRT track at ground level. My concern for the more elaborate BRT systems is that the price-to-performance ratio is probably not as good as light rail. Simple buses are very cheap and useful but of course quickly become limited in terms of travel time and even capacity. According to the library report, 3000 buses a day go down Spring Garden Road. It's not hard to imagine a point where there's just no more room for buses on Halifax's narrow streets.

Halifax Hillbilly Apr 5, 2010 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 4775183)
My concern for the more elaborate BRT systems is that the price-to-performance ratio is probably not as good as light rail. Simple buses are very cheap and useful but of course quickly become limited in terms of travel time and even capacity. According to the library report, 3000 buses a day go down Spring Garden Road. It's not hard to imagine a point where there's just no more room for buses on Halifax's narrow streets.

Even as ridership expands I just don't see us needing LRT performance for many corridors in Halifax, especially off the peninsula. The lower operating costs are great for LRT but only where the ridership can justify the expensive capital costs. I think an ideal solution will be having BRT and express routes servicing outlying, less dense areas that don't require the capacity of LRT and are also too far from the core to justify the construction costs. LRT would supplement this network by creating a small number of urban, high capacity corridors that move people within the core. I like to think of it as analogous to how large cities structure their commuter rail (lower capacity and cost, but good for long distance) and subways (very high cost and capacity but excellent for inner city and downtown environments).

I think Ottawa is a good reference city for bus congestion. The transitway moves through downtown on two parallel, one-way, bus only streets, one going in each direction. I believe they have reached the capacity of those streets to handle buses at rush hour and are looking to an LRT system with a downtown tunnel to eleviate this problem. They run a lot of articulated buses and really need the increased capacity of a rail system.

Ottawa has a much larger transit system than Halifax (370,000 riders per weekday for Ottawa, 80,000 for Halifax, according to Wiki); however, Halifax doesn't have the option of running buses on parallel one way streets in the downtown, at least not in any useful way. The IBI report did recommend ending several routes from Dartmouth at Bridge Terminal and using higher capacity buses on routes like the 1 to pick up the slack, which seems like a reasonable option. We will also be using more articulated buses in the future which will increase capacity. So we currently have options with our bus system to avoid huge bus congestion problems downtown, even as the Link routes expand. It's a really quick comparison, but I guess my main point is we are a long way off Ottawa's situation where bus congestion is a huge hindrance to the operation of the entire system. I think Halifax will embrace rail transit for reasons other than performance, like leveraging investment along key corridors such as Spring Garden, Barrington, Gottingen and Quinpool.

3000 buses a day can't be right. That's 1500 buses each direction per day. Metro Transit runs from 5am until 12pm, so 19 hours. 80 buses every hour in each direction?? That has to be off, even in rush hour the 1 only runs six buses per hour per direction.

someone123 Apr 5, 2010 10:16 PM

Maybe the report was exaggerated (or maybe I am misremembering) - 3000 does seem high, although not totally outlandish. The 1 probably accounts for something like 150 buses per day (both directions). There lots of routes along Spring Garden Road, but some are low frequency.

The other thing to keep in mind is that it's not the average over the day that matters, it's rush hour, and the roads downtown do get very clogged already with buses at times. Things break down very quickly when you don't have the throughput at the stops to have all the buses pull in and they start backing up. Articulated buses are a bit better but they still take up a lot of space.

The spinoffs from permanent investment and higher quality service are huge, I agree, and should play a big part when calculating the benefit of rail service in Halifax.

halifaxboyns Apr 5, 2010 11:56 PM

I was in Vancouver this past weekend and one of the things that continually amazes me is the benefit of the Canada Line. I'm a huge advocate of public transportation (despite owning a car); mainly because I live in Downtown Calgary. My preference is to take the Ctrain (because it's free in downtown) and use my car rarely.

For $7.50, I took the Canada line to downtown Vancouver, walked to my hotel and was right in the middle of it all (despite the wind storm).

Before the Canada Line, the 98 B-line provided essentially the same service from a transit terminal just off the airport island. High speed regular scheduled service, with one connection at the airport terminal to the actual departures/arrivals area.

I would suggest that if further BRT development be done, that service to the airport be considered the highest priority. The B-line is a great example of what a BRT should look like, right down to the bus stops used. The fact that the main stops through downtown (which are still in place) had digital display screens showing the ETA of the next 2 buses was great! I've not uploaded any photos from my trip; but when I get a chance I'll post an example.

I should also note that all the B-line buses were the articulated low floor ones (older versions of the 2 articulated hybrid buses on the roads in HRM now).

someone123 Apr 6, 2010 12:12 AM

The 99 is fine. I take it pretty often, but "BRT" is kind of a lie - "express bus" is much more honest. The 99 isn't a kind of cousin of LRT, it's a bus route with some extra features that make it better to use. It still randomly sits in traffic. The 98 used to be particularly bad coming from the bridges or downtown, and the displays announcing the next bus didn't work. The buses were crowded (the 99 still is), loud, and jerky, and generally far less pleasant than the Canada Line.

There was also a connection to a special airport bus on the 98, which is a big pain when you've got luggage and are running on 4 hours of sleep. The Canada Line service is much better, although the $5 surcharge seems gratuitous (originally there was to be no surcharge, then this was replaced by a message about how TransLink was magnanimously not charging the extra fee for the first few months of operation - hah!).

Apparently Metro Transit is looking at adding an airport bus, or already has.

halifaxboyns Apr 6, 2010 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 4782143)
The 99 is fine. I take it pretty often, but "BRT" is kind of a lie - "express bus" is much more honest. The 99 isn't a kind of cousin of LRT, it's a bus route with some extra features that make it better to use. It still randomly sits in traffic. The 98 used to be particularly bad coming from the bridges or downtown, and the displays announcing the next bus didn't work. The buses were crowded (the 99 still is), loud, and jerky, and generally far less pleasant than the Canada Line.

There was also a connection to a special airport bus on the 98, which is a big pain when you've got luggage and are running on 4 hours of sleep. The Canada Line service is much better, although the $5 surcharge seems gratuitous (originally there was to be no surcharge, then this was replaced by a message about how TransLink was magnanimously not charging the extra fee for the first few months of operation - hah!).

Apparently Metro Transit is looking at adding an airport bus, or already has.

I think every BRT has it's limitations. Here in Calgary we have three BRT routes (301, 302 and 305) and I'm hearing another one on the way. Unfortunately, we don't have enough of the articulated LFS buses (like the 2 hybrid's being used in Halifax, except still a regular diesel engine) to actually run the route. So Calgary Transit has resorted to using conventional buses during less peak times - which I don't like at all.

The thing that I liked about the B-line and indeed many of the Translink buses in downtown was that the major streets were sounded off as the bus approached, not terribly loud though (pump up the volume). Plus the street infrastructure is a good idea for other cities, even if the digital signs didn't work all the time. Just something for other cities to try to make better.

I think with a BRT there should be a surcharge, because in terms of the Metrolink service - it is different. But it shouldn't be something drastic.

worldlyhaligonian Apr 7, 2010 1:37 AM

In my ideal concept there is a surcharge vs. a traditional bus.

I think the railcut is an essential element of the route and I would like to see inexpensive concrete platforms.

It could start downtown near the Superstore on barrington.

Dal (south street) and Smu should each be responsible for their platform and stairway to street level.

The Malls should be for their platform at mumford(WEM/HSC). Revenue could also be generated via advertising.

A station at Bayers Rd as well, maybe right behind the mall with access to the grocery store and residential developments.

Eventually the route would be replaced in sections by LRT.

alps Apr 7, 2010 4:01 AM

Repost from rail thread -- probably should have posted here in the first place

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...0/eaef05a4.jpg

Just brainstorming...

-Clayton Park line runs down the "Linear Park" until Ashburn
-Bedford line runs on CN trackage, then down the no man's land alongside the Robie St extension (Massachusetts Ave), then does something Curitiba-style (dedicated busway) along Robie

I really hope to see true Rapid Transit in Halifax sometime soon and I think dedicated BRT transitways like Ottawa may be most realistic for us.

halifaxboyns May 19, 2010 5:07 PM

The important thing to remember with BRT is that it only works when the system is setup in such a way that the bus can by pass traffic. So, when arriving at major intersections - the bus would need to have priority.

In HRM's case - the bus is interacting with existing traffic; so no special lanes or anything - so if the traffic isn't moving for the whole street, then the BRT option doesn't work well except at the intersections.

There is a huge argument out here about the usefulness of new BRTs because the LRT is so sucessful in achieving high speed people movement without being infringed by traffic, whereas some of the BRT routes have not worked well because of the fact traffic (outside of intersections where the bus would have priority) has been so bad.

someone123 May 19, 2010 6:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns (Post 4845767)
There is a huge argument out here about the usefulness of new BRTs because the LRT is so sucessful in achieving high speed people movement without being infringed by traffic, whereas some of the BRT routes have not worked well because of the fact traffic (outside of intersections where the bus would have priority) has been so bad.

A common complaint I hear from drivers is that buses should not be given lanes because traffic is bad. I have also seen this many times about LRT in Halifax - we can't have it because the city is too busy and there's nowhere to put the lanes.

That is exactly when you want higher capacity transit. If Halifax were geared 100% to cars traffic would be significantly worse than it is today. Giving up lanes to rapid transit means higher capacity, which is what the peninsula is going to need eventually if it keeps growing. Eventually, successful cities need to bite the bullet and invest in difficult infrastructure. Lots of big cities have spent billions and billions carving out subway lines under their very built up downtown areas.

The argument that BRT gets stuck in traffic is specious. Ultimately you could run it in a ROW just like LRT. Seattle had for years an underground tunnel devoted to BRT. The problem is that the ROW itself is responsible for most of the capital costs of a project like that, and operating trains is likely much cheaper than operating a bus system (especially if they can be automated).

The real trade-off is that LRT is fixed to a single route whereas BRT routes can continue beyond the end of the ROW where you'd have to have a terminus and transfers with rail. BRT in Halifax could be dedicated ROWs on the peninsula, for example, but then mixed at later points, possibly as an express service (in Hammonds Plains or wherever, a place where LRT would never be worthwhile).

With this in mind I still think LRT is the way to go. It's a much higher quality, much more comfortable service. It would be higher capacity and would generate more spinoff development than BRT ever would. A line from the downtown to Clayton Park would provide great service to about 100,000 people living nearby plus would make it possible to redesign the bus network.

halifaxboyns May 19, 2010 9:29 PM

When I was talking about the BRT; I was mainly looking at the Calgary context. I know that at many intersections throughout the routes for the 301, 302 and 305 they have the ability to 'short cut' ahead of traffic, but by in large run on the same street as regular cars and traffic.

I don't disagree that some sort of high capacity transit system is needed - that is a no brainer. Where I think we disagree is on the form and probably routing.

Fairview/Clayton Park will probably be the main places where you'd have the best chance to run the service - mainly because Bedford seems to have the high speed ferry as it's main solution (I'd supplement it with rail too; since some people don't like boats).

I think Agricola Street would be one of the streets to consider; for a BRT corridor - mainly because no transit buses go down it. Plus; it's also an area that could be ripe for redevelopment because it's mainly a low valued area. These 'depressed' areas are the best to start projects like this - because you could build low rise high density (in the 10 to 15 storey range) through out - dedicate some of the parking as a public parking system (through a parking authority - which would then go back to the city) and take all or most of the parking off the street so that you could then have either an LRT in the street.

The other advantage for that street would be its closeness to some of the main employment centres. The LRT could then come out of Agricola, then go along North Park and then down Trollope to Summer Street and the hospital. Where you'd have to make a decision is about servicing Dalhousie and the IWK - so you could either get the train up to Robie (via Veterans Memorial Lane) and then down University (to service Dal/IWK) or just down Summer to University.

The other problem will be getting it into the core - this maybe where you have to bite the bullet and tunnel, mainly because of traffic and hills - I think the hills are too steep for an LRT like Calgary or Vancouver.
Thoughts?

someone123 May 19, 2010 9:47 PM

One of the problems with Bedford is that the route is not fully developed and the best rights of way are on the edge of the built up areas.

It would be best to minimize hills but I'm not sure how much modern LRT can handle. In Halifax the old streetcars managed going up the hill downtown.

For Agricola it would be interesting to consider something like a streetcar, but it's possible it would be cost prohibitive. I think the North End could fairly easily accommodate an extra 10-20,000 people (the development along Gladstone alone probably brought in 600 new people or so.. it's in the range of 300-400 units) and it's definitely worth investing tens of millions of dollars into transit to make that happen.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.