Costs & Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit (Study)

[M II A II R II K]

Costs & Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit

A study by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that bus rapid transit presents an attractive option for mass transit and has several advantages over rail systems.

Those advantages include lower capital cost for construction and a lower operating cost and also higher speeds. In comparing the capital cost of constructing a heavy rail system versus a bus system, the numbers are really astonishing: the Honolulu rail would cost as much as $300 million per mile, whereas you can improve a lane for buses on arterial streets for $1 million per mile, or you could build a new lane for buses -- the busway would cost about $14 million per mile, again compared to the Honolulu rail system at $300 million per mile. So it's just a huge difference.

• Video Link

[emathias]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Costs & Advantages of Bus Rapid Transit

The operating costs are only lower for low ridership routes. Anywhere with high ridership, heavy rail has an efficiency advantage. Particularly if you look at farebox ratios, since people will pay more for rail than they will for bus.

There's also the cost of pollution. Here in Chicago, even with the substitution in recent years of many hybrid buses on routes that serve Michigan Avenue, I really dislike walking on Michigan Avenue during rush hour because of all the diesel exhaust.

[jg6544]

Unless you run buses on completely separate, dedicated routes, they fall prey to everything cars fall prey to and are therefore slower and less convenient. Therefore, they don't work as mass transit because nobody will take one unless it's absolutely, positively mandatory.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Unless you run buses on completely separate, dedicated routes, they fall prey to everything cars fall prey to and are therefore slower and less convenient. Therefore, they don't work as mass transit because nobody will take one unless it's absolutely, positively mandatory.

BRT should be run separate from traffic, with at least enforced dedicated lanes. Of course the more "rail-like" you make it, the more expensive it is to implement.

[electricron]

The Honolulu rail system is the equivalent of two elevated bus lanes, with automatic operations (no drivers). That's equivalent to an elevated automated two-way people mover system one might find at airports, like at DFW Airport.

DFW's Skylink is an elevated, automated double guideway rubber wheel bus system with 35 mph max speeds that's 4.8 miles in length and cost $884 Million to build.

Using simple math, $884 Million / 4.8 miles = 184 Million/mile in 2005 dollars.
Note, Honolulu rail should be able to reach max speeds of 55 mph, a good 20 mph faster. It's estimated costs are using projected year of build costs, not costs from 7 to 8 years ago.

Still, $184 Million/mile for an automated, elevated, entirely grade separated bus transit system is far more expensive than your $1 Million/mile bus system sharing existing lanes which are not grade separated nor automated. But Honolulu's rail system will be automated, elevated, and entirely grade separated from other traffic.

I know comparing rail and bus systems is already like comparing apples to oranges. But what's so wrong comparing similar automated systems instead of comparing costs unfairly of automated to manual systems, grade separated to sharing lane systems?

[Mr Downtown]

Emathias, I don't see an "efficiency advantage" in the study you linked to. I just see different costs from different agencies.

Here are the operating costs per hour from the National Transit Database 2010 for the US systems that run both light rail (LR) and buses. Vehicle costs are roughly four times that of buses, even accounting for longer vehicle life. Operating costs per hour are more than double but crush capacity is only 50% greater.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by electricron

I know comparing rail and bus systems is already like comparing apples to oranges. But what's so wrong comparing similar automated systems instead of comparing costs unfairly of automated to manual systems, grade separated to sharing lane systems?

I believe construction costs in Hawaii are significantly higher because of the difficulty of getting construction materials and the need to import skilled workers from other parts of the country/world.

It's also a tricky comparison, since SkyLink probably had substantial efficiencies in its construction as part of a master-planned airport. Perhaps the terminal design anticipated the future train, or SkyLink used elements of the former system.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by emathias

BRT should be run separate from traffic, with at least enforced dedicated lanes. Of course the more "rail-like" you make it, the more expensive it is to implement.

Precisely. Might as well build a subway.

[jg6544]

Face it, folks, the only way you get people out of their cars and onto mass transit (unless you hold a gun to their heads and force them) is to make mass transit faster, more comfortable, and more convenient. Buses can't do that; light rail is only marginally better. If I have a choice between being stuck in traffic while sitting (or standing, more likely) on a bus or streetcar and being in my own car listening to my own stereo, and not being bothered by anyone I don't want to be bothered by, I'm going by car, not by mass transit.

Washington, DC, is a case in point. I lived there for ten years before Metro opened and for ten years after. Before it opened, I seldom, if ever, took the bus. I either walked or went by cab. After Metro opened, I took Metro. It was faster, more convenient, and more comfortable.

[ssiguy]

BRT can mean so many things. Sometimes agencies will call a line a BRT when all it really is is a more frequent bus with fewer stops.

Still true BRT has a lot of advantages over LRT especially when it has it's own lane and especially when it uses exclusive busways with POP. They are much more affordable to build and the vehicles are about one-quarter the price. They have high speeds, are more flexible switching to regular roads which can greatly reduce transfers which can make them very appealing, and they can be opened and/or extended much more easily.

In the US LRT has become flavour of the month and many cities that have built huge system at huge prices are getting very little return on the dollar. Those same cities could have built much more extensive BRT with busways and covered a far greater population. Unfortuneatly LRT makes for great ribbon cutting ceremonies which make politicians eyes water.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

BRT can mean so many things. Sometimes agencies will call a line a BRT when all it really is is a more frequent bus with fewer stops.

That's the way it is in Halifax. We were supposed to be getting BRT, but all it was were express buses with no additional infrastructure other than the buses themselves.

To me, in order to call anything rapid transit, bus or otherwise, it needs full grade separation. If the vehicles have to stop for anything other than passenger loading/unloading, whether it be traffic congestion, red lights, stop signs, train tracks, cross walks, or whatever, it is not rapid transit. They are just express routes of varying speeds.

As far as my take on BRT, there are probably only a few select circumstances where it is worthwhile, such as smaller, lowish density cities that cannot support anything higher grade. LRT vehicles may be more expensive, but they are much higher capacity, quieter, last several times longer, and require less energy. You can get most of the benefits of LRT with BRT if you spend enough money (grade separated busway for speed, electric trolley buses for sound reduction and energy efficiency, articulated buses for capacity) but then the cost is almost as high as full LRT, and it still falls behind on some of the benefits. It still suffers from the stigma of buses, still cannot reach the capacity of LRT, etc. And if they use electic trolley buses, then the advantage with ease of routing and eliminating transfers is often lost.

At the end of the day, if the route is busy enough to warrant rapid transit, then the extra capacity of full LRT will be appreciated. If it isn't, then the cost of shelling out for the grade separation for BRT is probably not warranted and the city should stick to express buses with some dedicated lanes and traffic light preemption.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I believe construction costs in Hawaii are significantly higher because of the difficulty of getting construction materials and the need to import skilled workers from other parts of the country/world.

It's also a tricky comparison, since SkyLink probably had substantial efficiencies in its construction as part of a master-planned airport. Perhaps the terminal design anticipated the future train, or SkyLink used elements of the former system.

The new DFW Skylink used none of the preexisting system.
You may be right about the higher construction costs in Hawaii.
Never-the-less, DFW's Skylink costs are well documented, here's a good site.
http://74.209.241.69/static/entransi...Spring2006.pdf
Because AAirTrain was so critical to DFW’s service during construction, it was not feasible to tear it out and build a new track in its place. A new right-of-way was necessary, and the DFW team initially looked at a variety of options including tunneling, an aerial suspension bridge, and a new roadway on the landside of the terminals. Ultimately, studies proved it was best to build Skylink on the airside for convenience of construction.
Ray Betler, Bombardier Transportation’s president of total transit systems, describes DFW’s Skylink as a driverless, automated system that runs on five miles of dual guideway.
All told, the $884 million APM program included all train, construction and soft costs.


At $188 Million/mile, it was more than twice the costs of any of DART's light rail lines (per mile).
Therefore, bus systems aren't always cheaper than light rail systems.

[Wizened Variations]

The cheapest alternative to private vehicle use is via privately owned non-regulated, non-registered buses, jitneys, SUVs, etc., like exist in Lagos, Nigeria.

As the efficientcy, comfort factors, safety, and, time-of-transit factors increase, so does the cost.

The best transportation systems, IMO, have fast, safe, well interconnected, transportation spines, with less efficient, cheaper, and, less regulated, feeder systems.

The question, IMO, relates to where the 'jobs' are, where the people 'live', the aggragate time/value cost of money on the part of the commuter, how much the rider is willing to pay for the service in terms of fares, taxes, etc., and, how much political will the aggragate commuter group will use to 'encourage' their governments to zone for, and, produce systems whose efficientcy will not be destroyed by local, city, state, and, federal corruption.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Emathias, I don't see an "efficiency advantage" in the study you linked to. I just see different costs from different agencies.

Here are the operating costs per hour from the National Transit Database 2010 for the US systems that run both light rail (LR) and buses. Vehicle costs are roughly four times that of buses, even accounting for longer vehicle life. Operating costs per hour are more than double but crush capacity is only 50% greater.

No. The numbers in the final column are all wrong. 177 is not "194% more" than 91. It is 94% more than 91. The same problem continues down every row of your chart. I don't know who put together this chart, but they need to proofread next time.

[Mr Downtown]

I put together the chart. It is, I will note, the only actual data in this entire thread. I guess I should more properly have used the wording "___% of bus cost" rather than the shorthand "___% more."

[Doady]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Face it, folks, the only way you get people out of their cars and onto mass transit (unless you hold a gun to their heads and force them) is to make mass transit faster, more comfortable, and more convenient. Buses can't do that; light rail is only marginally better. If I have a choice between being stuck in traffic while sitting (or standing, more likely) on a bus or streetcar and being in my own car listening to my own stereo, and not being bothered by anyone I don't want to be bothered by, I'm going by car, not by mass transit.

Washington, DC, is a case in point. I lived there for ten years before Metro opened and for ten years after. Before it opened, I seldom, if ever, took the bus. I either walked or went by cab. After Metro opened, I took Metro. It was faster, more convenient, and more comfortable.

So basically anything other than subways are not useful for transit, based purely on your personal, anecdotal evidence.

There are plenty of successful bus and rail systems out there. Just because bus service in Washington, DC sucks, doesn't mean it sucks everywhere. Ottawa has a better transit ridership than Washington DC, for example.

Besides, the topic of this thread is not about "being stuck in traffic while sitting (or standing, more likely) on a bus", this thread is about bus rapid transit, which ya know, doesn't involve being stuck in traffic (same with modern light rail)...

I'm also not sure how even regular buses and streetcars are so useless, with the apparent standing room-only situations on buses and streetcars that you describe, which I take to mean that they are heavily used, unless you are suggesting that the buses and streetcars don't have seats to begin with.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Emathias, I don't see an "efficiency advantage" in the study you linked to. I just see different costs from different agencies.

Here are the operating costs per hour from the National Transit Database 2010 for the US systems that run both light rail (LR) and buses. Vehicle costs are roughly four times that of buses, even accounting for longer vehicle life. Operating costs per hour are more than double but crush capacity is only 50% greater.

The problem is that measuring them per hour doesn't take into account the vast increase in ridership that rail brings.

You can always look at statistics another way. On a per-boarding basis, rail is FAR more efficient. Per passenger mile, rail is again far more efficient. So there's another side to it.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Doady

Besides, the topic of this thread is not about "being stuck in traffic while sitting (or standing, more likely) on a bus", this thread is about bus rapid transit, which ya know, doesn't involve being stuck in traffic (same with modern light rail)...

That is not really true at all.

His comment was that unless a route is fully grade separated and does not have to stop for anything other than the station stops, it is not rapid transit.
This could be subway, lrt, or bus.

And you and everyone else know that many systems today call themselves rapid transit, even though they still get stuck in traffic, stop at stop lights, etc.

For example: When I went to visit a friend in NYC, we took a ride on the Newark Light Rail. The old section of the line is fully grade separated, and does not stop at cross streets that the line passes (this is achieved through full grade separation, or a signal which stops cross traffic while the train goes through).
The newer extension to Grove Street is also gade separated not operating on streets. But it does not have full signal priority at cross streets which the line passes through. The result, we wasted minutes stopping at red signals, while the train waited for cross to pass, before the train was allowed to proceed.
That is not rapid transit, if you are sitting waiting for traffic at cross streets.

Same with BRT. A lot of systems are calling their routes BRT, when in fact they operate in mixed traffic, stop at stop lights, etc. The truth is a lot of these routes are just limited stop bus routes.

There are really very few true bus rapid transit lines in North America. The ones that come to mind are the Ottawa Transitway, Winnipeg Rapid Transit route, LA Orange Line (sort of, as I heard they don't have full signal priorty), and the Pittsburgh T busways.

This is bus rapid transit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_RCu...eature=related

Not this, even though it is called BRT. It really is just a fancy express bus, and will still be that even when the bus lanes are built, as the buses will still have to stop at stop lights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fesnh...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBC5Z6s4d8

[M II A II R II K]

There should be a minimum requirement for what constitutes rapid transit such as a minimum average speed to move across a line at any given distance. 30 MPH perhaps.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

There should be a minimum requirement for what constitutes rapid transit such as a minimum average speed to move across a line at any given distance. 30 MPH perhaps.

LOL. Almost no lines (other than long-distance commuter rail) reach those speeds. Vancouver's SkyTrain is probably the fastest "metro" system in North American, and it is only in the mid-20s. Toronto's B-D and Y-U-S lines average around 20 MPH end-to-end. The Sheppard and SRT lines are in the mid-20s.