Bus rapid transit system could boost metro Detroit, experts say

[Brian1979]

The only bus line I ever use in Chicago is the #20 which goes along Madison Street from the loop to Austin. The only reason I use this line is to get to the United Center, otherwise I use the train in Chicago. Last time I went to the United Center I walked all the way to the blue line in the median of the Eisenhower Expressway to the Illinois Medical District stop. Now if I'm not going to use a bus in Chicago why would I want to use one in Detroit? This BRT crap is pointless, it's not going to do anything to better serve Detroit or it's suburbs. Bring back the streetcars but just do it better this time. Anytime you can get cars off the streets that's a good thing, a city is suppose to be walkable, no city in America depends on cars as much as Detroit. Detroit is the 12th largest metro area in the country and can't even have a mass transit system. That's a joke and so is BRT.

[Wesley Mouch]

The only bus line I ever use in Chicago is the #20 which goes along Madison Street from the loop to Austin. The only reason I use this line is to get to the United Center, otherwise I use the train in Chicago. Last time I went to the United Center I walked all the way to the blue line in the median of the Eisenhower Expressway to the Illinois Medical District stop. Now if I'm not going to use a bus in Chicago why would I want to use one in Detroit? This BRT crap is pointless, it's not going to do anything to better serve Detroit or it's suburbs. Bring back the streetcars but just do it better this time. Anytime you can get cars off the streets that's a good thing, a city is suppose to be walkable, no city in America depends on cars as much as Detroit. Detroit is the 12th largest metro area in the country and can't even have a mass transit system. That's a joke and so is BRT.

This BRT vs. LRT debate is pointless. We agree on need for transit: as you said 'anytime you get cars off the street'.

We could do BRT very well. And we could do LRT badly. I'll take a great BRT over bad LRT.

But in the end -- who cares. Just get a good system done, with great equipment, design, and operation.

[ghettopalmetto]

This BRT vs. LRT debate is pointless. We agree on need for transit: as you said 'anytime you get cars off the street'.

We could do BRT very well. And we could do LRT badly. I'll take a great BRT over bad LRT.

But in the end -- who cares. Just get a good system done, with great equipment, design, and operation.

That's the whole crux of the argument. People DO want a *good* system, with great equipment, design, and operation. If you run light rail down the major boulevards in Detroit, it will be very difficult to "do it badly". At the same time, BRT could amount to nothing more than regular buses with greater stop spacing and a fancy paint job, which I think we can agree is not much of an improvement, and certainly not "rapid".

In summary, a "bad" implementation of light rail would surpass a "good" implementation of BRT with regard to operating costs, passenger capacity, and operating speed. In the past, I've explained ad nauseum why this is so.

If you want a "great" BRT [[similar to what they run in South America), it would cost just as much to construct as light rail.

With that said, here's a nugget from the other side of Lake Erie. Rick Snyder would be wise to take heed:

HealthLine buses moving slower than expected on Euclid Avenue

Published: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 4:05 AM Updated: Tuesday, July 06, 2010, 7:44 AM

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- RTA's HealthLine -- a bus/rapid transit touted as a faster, more efficient way to travel Euclid Avenue -- is moving at about the same slow pace as the bus it replaced.
...

A westbound bus ride during weekday mornings and evening rush hours along the 7.1-mile corridor averaged 44 minutes instead of the 33 minutes it is supposed to take, according to the latest data provided by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for the first three months of this year.

The 44 minutes was just three minutes faster than the No. 6 bus that the HealthLine replaced.

An eastbound trip during the same time period averaged 36 minutes.

$200 million and 25 years of planning and construction to save three minutes. Yeah, that's worth it.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010...ng_slower.html

[canuck]

That's the whole crux of the argument. People DO want a *good* system, with great equipment, design, and operation. If you run light rail down the major boulevards in Detroit, it will be very difficult to "do it badly". At the same time, BRT could amount to nothing more than regular buses with greater stop spacing and a fancy paint job, which I think we can agree is not much of an improvement, and certainly not "rapid".

In summary, a "bad" implementation of light rail would surpass a "good" implementation of BRT with regard to operating costs, passenger capacity, and operating speed. In the past, I've explained ad nauseum why this is so.

Yes, and the obvious need for transit that folks will be attracted to and that the suburban rings will want to adopt is an important issue for the future.

[Wesley Mouch]

<snip>...$200 million and 25 years of planning and construction to save three minutes. Yeah, that's worth it.

You're misrepresented the article.

The article is much more upbeat than your summary.

You found one article on one line on shared right-of-way that two years ago needed some work to get it running as designed, and that means BRT sucks?

Here're the statistics from the article:

Old bus: 47 minutes
New BRT as of 7/2010 [[westbound): 44 minutes [[6% decrease)
New BRT as of 7/2010 [[eastbound): 36 minutes [[23% decrease)
New BRT as expect when fully implemented: 33 minutes [[30% decrease)

So the system two years ago was running between 6% and 23% faster than the old bus.

And it will eventually run 30% faster.

That sounds like great success to me for BRT.

"It is much nicer and ridership is up"

Brad Chase, Chairman, RTA Citizens Advisory Board

[Flintoid]

I'm gonna have to agree with Mouch here. Sure we could have LRT, and that is indeed the ideal goal, but we also have a budget and a need to solve this regional transit issue here and now. We have a choice, 100+ miles of BRT or 8 miles of LRT....not much of a choice. BRT is sleek and does not look like a regular bus. Would I prefer LRT? Of course, but the debate is not between 100+ miles of LRT and 100+ miles of BRT, it's 8 miles or 100+. So far BRT is the only solution to REGIONAL transit that has been presented. I would happily accept BRT in a minute if construction can start soon. I really dont give a damn if i'm riding a fancy bus or a fancy train, as long as a I dont have to use my car and it gets me from Pt. A to Pt. B quickly and efficiently. BRT is the only system that has been presented that could get me from not only Hart Plaza to Ferndale but also downtown to the Airport or downtown to Mt. Clemens or Midtown to mid-Oakland County. As pretty and successful as LRT is, we do not have the budget or regional support for it. We have regional support for BRT. Let's run with it and actually solve our regional transit crisis once and for all.

[Parkguy]

... but we also have a budget and a need to solve this regional transit issue here and now. ...So far BRT is the only solution to REGIONAL transit that has been presented. I would happily accept BRT in a minute if construction can start soon. I really dont give a damn if i'm riding a fancy bus or a fancy train, as long as a I dont have to use my car and it gets me from Pt. A to Pt. B quickly and efficiently. BRT is the only system that has been presented that could get me from not only Hart Plaza to Ferndale but also downtown to the Airport or downtown to Mt. Clemens or Midtown to mid-Oakland County. As pretty and successful as LRT is, we do not have the budget or regional support for it. We have regional support for BRT. Let's run with it and actually solve our regional transit crisis once and for all.

I have to agree here. I'm glad that LRT is still in the works for Woodward, and I'm glad that BRT is being developed for other lines. I'm not so sure that Hall Road is the right route, but if that gets Macomb County on board, then great. By the way, the big light rail study done by URS a couple of years ago indicated that Gratiot was not a candidate for LRT at all because of the huge costs in infrastructure changes it would require: too many bridges, underpasses, and buried streams. And, at least in the short run, something like BRT will shuttle airport passengers from the train station at Michigan and Merriman/Henry Ruff Rd. to the airport. The plans do not call for a rail spur to the actual airport, unless there were changes I didn't hear about.

[ghettopalmetto]

Wesley Mouch, do the math. Even on Euclid Avenue's shorter eastbound trip, that works out to 12 miles per hour.

That's right. Twelve. About the same average speed as a regular ole stuck-in-traffic Manhattan bus.

Is that "rapid" to you?

Sorry, folks. If you think you're going to get anything "rapid" on a budget, you've been mislead. Sure, you can concoct some perverted form of rapid transit with buses--new buses with a sexy paint job and branding, for instance--but it sure as hell isn't going to be anywhere comparable to light rail. And any "new technology" they introduce isn't something that DDOT couldn't already be doing on the 53 Woodward.

You've been fooled. And it's not your fault, really. Rick Snyder is hoping that transit-ignorant Michigan will be happy with the crumbs he throws your way.

Light rail, by the way, can average operating speeds exceeding 24 mph [[Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, Salt Lake), which makes it very competitive with automobile travel.

Bus rapid transit is no solution. SMART, as it stands, has the longest average bus trip lengths in the nation. In. The. Nation. And that's at the higher operating costs inherent to buses. All because Detroit don't need no dang stinkin rail. Good luck running a massive regional BRT system when diesel hits $5/gallon--the metrics aren't going to improve any, and you'll be stuck with a white elephant subject to severe economic shocks while the rest of the world moves forward on electrically-powered trains.

[casscorridor]

Bus rapid transit is no solution. SMART, as it stands, has the longest average bus trip lengths in the nation. In. The. Nation. And that's at the higher operating costs inherent to buses. All because Detroit don't need no dang stinkin rail. Good luck running a massive regional BRT system when diesel hits $5/gallon--the metrics aren't going to improve any, and you'll be stuck with a white elephant subject to severe economic shocks while the rest of the world moves forward on electrically-powered trains.

Yep, suburban Detroit would be better off having a regional commuter rail system with local buses that connect the surrounding areas. Urban Detroit needs mass transit -- frequent, high-capacity, rail system serving the core of Detroit [[and connecting to the airport and major suburban job centers such as Dearborn or Southfield) in addition to frequent, 24hr bus service on all major roads in the core city. There is little chance to have a major urban revival in Detroit without connecting the city's neighborhoods and suburbs with its center.

[Wesley Mouch]

Wesley Mouch, do the math. Even on Euclid Avenue's shorter eastbound trip, that works out to 12 miles per hour.

Speed isn't everything. Coverage of system. Distance from home/work to station. Walking time within station. Time between trains. There are a lot more factors than just mph.

Sorry, folks. If you think you're going to get anything "rapid" on a budget, you've been mislead. Sure, you can concoct some perverted form of rapid transit with buses--new buses with a sexy paint job and branding, for instance--but it sure as hell isn't going to be anywhere comparable to light rail. And any "new technology" they introduce isn't something that DDOT couldn't already be doing on the 53 Woodward.

Go take a look at this stop on the Euclid BRT.

Tell me that you can't build a lot more of this than you can light rail for the same money.

This section btw, is the dedicated lane part of this route. About 1/2 of the route is dedicated, and 1/2 of the route is regular curb service, like this regular bus stop. The curb section is probably rather slow, and I'll bet the dedicated part is quite fast. The article palmy referenced earlier said that they were using bus-priority signals. I've seen those in other cities where the bus gets a jump on the cars by going before the light turns green for cars. It makes a huge difference in throughput. If Cleveland can get to their estimated 30% trip savings time, that'll be amazing for the investment.[/QUOTE]

...snip...Good luck running a massive regional BRT system when diesel hits $5/gallon--the metrics aren't going to improve any, and you'll be stuck with a white elephant subject to severe economic shocks while the rest of the world moves forward on electrically-powered trains.

On Cleveland's Euclid line "These low-floor, articulated 62 feet [[19 m) buses are quiet, environmentally friendly, and served by a low-sulfur-diesel engine to power smaller electrical motors mounted near the wheels of the vehicles. A few of these buses have been ordered with a standard Allison B500R6 transmission instead of the Hybrid propulsion system.

I think quite the opposite is going to turn out to be true. The cities with massively expensive per mile, inflexible, light rail that's essentially unchanged since the 1920s are going to be looking at cities with flexible, less capital intensive, upgradable BRT.

[Bham1982]

Wesley Mouch, do the math. Even on Euclid Avenue's shorter eastbound trip, that works out to 12 miles per hour.

That's right. Twelve. About the same average speed as a regular ole stuck-in-traffic Manhattan bus.

Is that "rapid" to you?

This is all silly. The Euclid Ave. BRT line may or may not be a good idea, but the current slow speed has nothing to do with it. They haven't yet upgraded the signaling to accomondate BRT.

Ever taken the Green Line in Boston? Or the various LRT lines in Cleveland? They're all super-slow and stop at every light. Does that mean light rail automatically sucks and should never be considered?

[erikd]

I'm gonna have to agree with Mouch here. Sure we could have LRT, and that is indeed the ideal goal, but we also have a budget and a need to solve this regional transit issue here and now. We have a choice, 100+ miles of BRT or 8 miles of LRT....not much of a choice. BRT is sleek and does not look like a regular bus. Would I prefer LRT? Of course, but the debate is not between 100+ miles of LRT and 100+ miles of BRT, it's 8 miles or 100+. So far BRT is the only solution to REGIONAL transit that has been presented. I would happily accept BRT in a minute if construction can start soon. I really dont give a damn if i'm riding a fancy bus or a fancy train, as long as a I dont have to use my car and it gets me from Pt. A to Pt. B quickly and efficiently. BRT is the only system that has been presented that could get me from not only Hart Plaza to Ferndale but also downtown to the Airport or downtown to Mt. Clemens or Midtown to mid-Oakland County. As pretty and successful as LRT is, we do not have the budget or regional support for it. We have regional support for BRT. Let's run with it and actually solve our regional transit crisis once and for all.

If we actually had a choice between 9.3 miles of LRT on Woodward vs 110 miles of real BRT [[Cleveland Euclid style), I would also choose the BRT proposal. However, we are not being offered that choice.

The assertion that we can take the $550 million in committed funding for the Woodward Light Rail project and just re-appropriate it to build a 110 mile BRT system is a flat-out lie. It is factually false for a number of reasons.

First off, the only reason we had the opportunity to get $550 million in funding for the Woodward light rail line was due to the $125 million in initial private funding to build a 3.4 mile section of light rail on Woodward. With the local private funding for the first 3.4 miles of Woodward light rail, the city became eligible for matching federal grants to pay for a 5.9 mile extension with basically no additional local construction cost.

The Snyder/Bing proposal for regional BRT relies on two completely false assumptions:

1. They are assuming that the private investors behind the original Woodward light rail plan will change their plans and give the $125 million to support the regional BRT system instead. This will clearly not happen, because the private investor group has announced that they will not help to fund the proposed BRT system, and instead continue to pursue their original plan to privately fund the 3.4 mile light rail line.

This means that the $550 million BRT plan is now short of the $125 million in private local investment needed to qualify for the matching federal funds. Even if the federal government would allow the private M1 funding to "count" as local funding for the BRT system, we are still short $125 million.

2. They are assuming that 110 miles of BRT can be built for $550 million. This estimate is way out of line. To be sure, BRT is much cheaper to build than light rail, but it isn't 1/10th of the cost of light rail. It is closer to 1/2 the cost of light rail. The Euclid line in Cleveland [[frequently used as an example of the Bing/Snyder BRT proposal) cost $200 million for a line that runs 7 miles. That works out to more than $28 million per mile. It is a little less than half of the estimated $59 million per mile for the Woodward light rail line, but about 6 times more expensive than the unrealistic proposal of the Bing/Snyder BRT system at $5 million per mile.

I don't know what makes Bing and Snyder think that we could build 110 miles of BRT for $550 million, because it is simply unrealistic. The actual cost of 110 miles of real BRT is over $3 billion.

The end result is not a choice between Woodward light rail and regional BRT, but a choice between a fully-funded light rail line that was on the verge of breaking ground, and an unrealistic BRT pipe dream with no basis in reality, and very little chance of coming to fruition.

[casscorridor]

The end result is not a choice between Woodward light rail and regional BRT, but a choice between a fully-funded light rail line that was on the verge of breaking ground, and an unrealistic BRT pipe dream with no basis in reality, and very little chance of coming to fruition.

Yeah, agreed. A much cheaper solution than the 3 billion BRT would be a light-rail system that runs along existing rail right-of-ways [[but using exclusive track). Connections could easily be made throughout the region, including to the Airport. Downtown, the lines could go underground and function so it is a hybrid of commuter and rapid transit functions. Think: Atlanta METRA, SFBay BART mixed with St. Louis, Cleveland and Seattle light-rail systems.