BRT... when it works, when it doesn't

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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):

Originally Posted by big-dog

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


highway


Taxi


Jetty building


The city


BRT road


residental highrises


under-sea tunnel (U/C)


BRT station


BRT ticket counter


BRT all dedicated road


BRT bus (12m)


in station


look outside


outside BRT - Peony hotel


Lianban area


BRT road


reaching railway station


inside the BRT bus


to Pier I


Ads "Kinglong bus"










station








map






BRT terminal






price




entrance


3rd floor


Bus door and platform door






Kinglong bus










The bus

















by 紫日, xinhuanet

Originally Posted by big-dog

more pictures













(baidu.com)

¨

Map

[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
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)

================================================================

Northwest Rail Corridor
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)

=================================================================

In this map (provided by DenverInfill.com), 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by staff

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




¨

Map

[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]

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

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

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.

[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?