Rapid Bus Project for Pontiac --> Downtown Detroit Proposed

[Bham1982]

Except the proposed idea;

1. Has not a damned thing "rapid" about it.

2. Costs a lot of money for...

3. ...providing service [[Detroit-to-Pontiac in 90 minutes) identical to what already exists.

Don't be fooled. Bus "rapid" transit is a scam by the road lobby to siphon transit dollars into road paving projects. No more, no less.

I don't see how this is true. BRT systems typically involve dedicated bus lanes and even targeted signaling, and are typically many times cheaper than rail systems, which require huge infrastructure outlays. BRT can be fast and inexpensive, and is much more similar to light rail than to local bus service.

And what on earth is the "road lobby"? BRT wouldn't benefit any such lobby any more than light rail. Road improvements in Michigan are almost entirely covered by counties and localities, so if there's some new road being built in boondock township [[which is rare these days, BTW), the township and county are paying the bill.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't see how this is true. BRT systems typically involve dedicated bus lanes and even targeted signaling, and are typically many times cheaper than rail systems, which require huge infrastructure outlays.

Typically? Based on what? Cleveland's HealthLine, which has ZERO signal pre-emption? Or Los Angeles's MetroRapid, which doesn't have dedicated lanes for its entire route? Or maybe Boston's Silver Line, which is notorious for getting stuck in traffic, and makes people along its route pine for the [[now-demolished) Orange Line El. There are only a handful of bus routes in the United States recognized as bus "rapid" transit, and they all vary wildly in their operating characteristics. So I'm glad that you're smart enough to generalize and establish trends about wildly different systems. Never mind that the cheapo Sexybus system proposed for Detroit wouldn't be able to afford ANY of the things you mention, based on the proposed capital budgets.

And where do you get your cost numbers? Hell, I'd be surprised if you ever rode a school bus, let alone bus "rapid" transit.

BRT can be fast and inexpensive, and is much more similar to light rail than to local bus service.

Okay, you first. Come to Cleveland and tell me that the [[average) 12 mph Euclid Avenue Sexybus is just as fast as the Red Line rail. But maybe while you summon your courage to *gasp* take public transit, you can tell us why Ottawa is spending millions of dollars to replace their amazing bus rapid transit system with rail, or why Los Angeles is extending its subway network, or why even BRT Poster Child: Curitiba, Brazil, is building a subway.

And what on earth is the "road lobby"?

So the Michigan Road Builders Association doesn't exist?

BRT wouldn't benefit any such lobby any more than light rail. Road improvements in Michigan are almost entirely covered by counties and localities, so if there's some new road being built in boondock township [[which is rare these days, BTW), the township and county are paying the bill.

Right. And Michigan counties and localities are flat-broke. So why not get federal transit money to repave the major [[8-to-10-lane monstrosity) roads?

But I'm wasting my time. You've demonstrated time-and-again that you're a shill for the status-quo, not the least bit interested in facts, analysis, or empirical evidence.

[Hermod]

Right. And Michigan counties and localities are flat-broke. So why not get federal transit money to repave the major [[8-to-10-lane monstrosity) roads?

Federal transit money is not fungible. You can't spend fed money for public transit on highways. Money comes from the feds with definite strings attached.

[ghettopalmetto]

Federal transit money is not fungible. You can't spend fed money for public transit on highways. Money comes from the feds with definite strings attached.

You can sure as shit use Federal transit dollars to repave and landscape highways--IF you "install" a bus rapid transit project along that roadway.

Euclid Avenue is the finest stretch of pavement in all of Cuyahoga County. Not a single damned pothole for seven miles.

[Bham1982]

Typically? Based on what? Cleveland's HealthLine, which has ZERO signal pre-emption? Or Los Angeles's MetroRapid, which doesn't have dedicated lanes for its entire route? Or maybe Boston's Silver Line, which is notorious for getting stuck in traffic, and makes people along its route pine for the [[now-demolished) Orange Line El.

This is all wrong. All of these systems have dedicated lanes. I have never heard of a BRT system with no dedicated lanes, and don't know how it would be possible.

There are only a handful of bus routes in the United States recognized as bus "rapid" transit, and they all vary wildly in their operating characteristics.

True, and irrelevent. There are only a handful of rail systems in the U.S., and they too vary wildly in their operating characeristics. What's your point?

And where do you get your cost numbers? Hell, I'd be surprised if you ever rode a school bus, let alone bus "rapid" transit.

How about every BRT system in existence? How does painting a roadway and building a barrier and some fare machines cost more than a rail system?

That's what NYC did with its BRT lines all over the city, and the ridership destroys that of most rail systems. They've spent a couple of hundred of million citywide, and are getting hundreds of miles, which would be the cost of just planning additional rail lines, never mind building anything rail [[and in a very high cost city where they're spending $5 billion on a single subway station at the WTC, and tens of billions on the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access projects).

[professorscott]

This is all wrong. All of these systems have dedicated lanes. I have never heard of a BRT system with no dedicated lanes, and don't know how it would be possible.

The confusion here, I think, Bham, is that projectors of bus lines tend to want to call them "BRT" when they actually aren't, because you can try to get Uncle Sugar to ante up for something if you claim that it's BRT.


To me, if you want to call something BRT and convince me that you aren't just blowing smoke, you have to have, at a minimum, these operating characteristics:

1. Transit-only lanes. Now, true, a BRT system can go non-BRT in mixed traffic beyond the end of the BRT portion, or can have spurs which are non-BRT. But, to me, only the portion in dedicated lanes is actually BRT.

2. Off-board fare payment [[in the BRT portion, as noted above). If the bus has to idle while people fumble with crumpled-up dollar bills, that's not BRT.

3. Some amount of signal tweakage, though this varies situationally. Queue-jump signals at a minimum, and preferable full-scale signal prioritization.

If you have those things on at least a portion of a route, that portion is BRT; otherwise you're just putting in, at most, an express bus.

[ghettopalmetto]

This is all wrong. All of these systems have dedicated lanes. I have never heard of a BRT system with no dedicated lanes, and don't know how it would be possible.

So maybe you can explain how Boston's Silver Line is perpetually stuck in traffic. Must be those dedicated lanes, huh?

It's called "Run the damned bus down an ordinary street". That's how it's possible.

There are only a handful of rail systems in the U.S., and they too vary wildly in their operating characeristics. What's your point?

There are dozens of light rail systems in the United States. They all have dedicated right-of-way, operate in multiple-car consists, utilized steel wheels on steel rails, are powered by electricity, have fare payment systems, stations-and-platforms, and many are also grade-separated [[at least in portions). That sounds pretty consistent to me.

Cleveland's ballyhooed HealthLine cost just as much per mile to construct as the Waterfront Line light rail. The HealthLine, though, is so RAPID with it's dedicated lanes, boarding platforms, fare prepayment, and brand new sexybuses, that its average operating speed is a whopping 12 miles per hour! It's a miracle people aren't building this kind of rapid transit everywhere!

How about every BRT system in existence? How does painting a roadway and building a barrier and some fare machines cost more than a rail system?

Well, that in itself doesn't make "rapid transit" now, does it? And since there really isn't such a thing as true bus "rapid" transit in this country, it's a bit difficult to use that metric for comparison, isn't it?

It seems like you forgot purchase of articulated low-floor buses, construction of stations, electronic transmitters and receivers for traffic signal pre-emption, and repaving of the roadway. But since the cost of those things is practically negligible, let's start buying white paint and get to work on our World Class Rapid Transit!

[ghettopalmetto]

The position Bham1982 is advocating is known as "BRT Creep". Once the decision [[which, in this case, is pre-ordained) is made to construct BRT, then all sorts of shortcuts can be taken in order to complete the project on-the-cheap. The project is sold as rapid transit, but the finished product looks like painted white lines on the road, and it is somehow assumed that because of new painted white lines, an ordinary bus will operate in the same manner [[and with the same cost metrics) as a train. I'm still not sure how paint = rapid transit. I guess we're just supposed to believe the road builders, er, experts at SEMCOG.

So yeah, SEMCOG can recommend a cheap-ass cop-out on transit, but they'll sure-as-shit recommend spending $1 billion to widen I-75, or another $1 billion to widen I-94.

People aren't as dumb as SEMCOG would like them to be.

[bailey]

The position Bham1982 is advocating is known as "BRT Creep". Once the decision [[which, in this case, is pre-ordained) is made to construct BRT, then all sorts of shortcuts can be taken in order to complete the project on-the-cheap. The project is sold as rapid transit, but the finished product looks like painted white lines on the road, and it is somehow assumed that because of new painted white lines, an ordinary bus will operate in the same manner [[and with the same cost metrics) as a train. I'm still not sure how paint = rapid transit. I guess we're just supposed to believe the road builders, er, experts at SEMCOG.

So yeah, SEMCOG can recommend a cheap-ass cop-out on transit, but they'll sure-as-shit recommend spending $1 billion to widen I-75, or another $1 billion to widen I-94.

People aren't as dumb as SEMCOG would like them to be.

yes they are.... it's proven every.single.day around these parts.

[Bham1982]

So maybe you can explain how Boston's Silver Line is perpetually stuck in traffic. Must be those dedicated lanes, huh?

I have no idea if the Silver Line is "perpetually stuck in traffic", but, yes, it does have dedicated lanes, even dedicated underground lanes. My subway used to be "perpetually stuck in traffic" too, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a dedicated right-of-way.

There are dozens of light rail systems in the United States. They all have dedicated right-of-way, operate in multiple-car consists, utilized steel wheels on steel rails, are powered by electricity, have fare payment systems, stations-and-platforms, and many are also grade-separated [[at least in portions). That sounds pretty consistent to me.

Everything you just wrote [[at least the parts that are relevant) is also true of BRT systems. All have dedicated right of way, all have separate fare payment systems. That's what BRT is. There's no distinction in scope between BRT as an umbrella concept for fast bus and LRT as an umbrella concept for low capacity rail.

Cleveland's ballyhooed HealthLine cost just as much per mile to construct as the Waterfront Line light rail.

Then BRT must be a hell of a lot cheaper, because the Waterfront light rail was built 20 years ago, and has minimal ridership compared to the Euclid line.

It seems like you forgot purchase of articulated low-floor buses, construction of stations, electronic transmitters and receivers for traffic signal pre-emption, and repaving of the roadway. But since the cost of those things is practically negligible, let's start buying white paint and get to work on our World Class Rapid Transit!

Compared to a new rail system, yes, obviously buying new buses and fareboxes are many times cheaper. Buses have to be replaced every few years anyways. Fare machines cost almost nothing. Bus shelters are actually revenue sources for most major cities, because of advertising. Painting a lane of traffic is a minimal expense. If high-cost NYC can build BRT lines all over the place for minimal amounts, I think moderate-cost Michigan can do the same.

You can build a BRT line for tens of millions. You can't build a light rail line for less than hundreds of millions. We're talking massive difference in upfront costs.

[Detroitnerd]

This is all wrong. All of these systems have dedicated lanes. I have never heard of a BRT system with no dedicated lanes, and don't know how it would be possible.

Well, there is this thing called research ... sigh ...

[Bham1982]

Well, there is this thing called research ... sigh ...

Ok, can you please point us to a BRT system lacking actual BRT lanes? Do the buses fly?

[Detroitnerd]

Ok, can you please point us to a BRT system lacking actual BRT lanes? Do the buses fly?

You're kind of a smart guy, Bham, but your huffy and categorical dismissals of whole ideas have attitude to spare, but seldom include much evidence.

As for this BRT thing, I think you're engaging in a kind of shell game here. BRT systems have designated lanes. But not all systems labeled as "BRT" are really "BRT," so you could be having that both ways by intentionally misunderstanding what we're discussing.

To clarify, you don't need BRT to have designated lanes. Designated lanes are a good idea for bus service.

And, based on the numbers we're seeing, I can only conclude we're not going to get a BRT system. We're getting a bus system.