Bus rapid transit system could boost metro Detroit, experts say

**Wesley Mouch** · March-11-12, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by stasu1213

I feel that the reason why federal money was sent back to Washington for these leaders had been and are bought off by local entities. Snyder, Bing, and other are probably puppets also.

Probably GM fighting to keep its bus sales strong again.

**ghettopalmetto** · March-11-12, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Probably GM fighting to keep its bus sales strong again.

Not buses - Trains on Tires. Get it straight, man! :-)

**Brian1979** · March-12-12, 10:40 AM

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** · March-12-12, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · March-12-12, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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** · March-12-12, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

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** · March-12-12, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

<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** · March-12-12, 06:23 PM

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.