Bus Rapid Transit

**Tig3rzhark** · August-23-10, 10:49 PM

Everyone has already seen about the M1 rail and how it's suppose to be a catalyst for building a Metropolitan Transit System.

The M1 rail is a start, however, to use rail on all of the spokes that connect to Campus Maritus, would be expensive for the regional as a whole.

In one of the recent forums, I saw a few buses that look like trains.

Here's what I'm wondering:

Why haven't GM, Ford and Chrysler have started making buses like these? After all, there are some people who just don't need to be driving that are.

They could still make a profit from selling better buses than other auto companies.

Bottom line: LRT is too expensive, let's apply it where we can, but apply alternatives where we can't.

DetroitDad · August-23-10, 11:21 PM

Recent discussion tangent on B.R.T..

**fryar** · August-24-10, 12:07 AM

To my mind, there would be nothing wrong with implementing a regional BRT system in Detroit. It would take some limited infrastructure improvement, not even as much as can be seen above, no more certainly. Really, you could maybe even just install some of those cheap plastic things, I have no idea what they're called, but I know I have seen them, like orange plastic pipes that stick up out of the pavement but fold over when someone drives over them. Stick a camera on the front so you can issue tickets in cases of reckless disregard and update the stop lights to prioritize BRT traffic using a transmitter system, for example. It's not free, but it's cheap. With its low upfront costs, it can be used as a proxy for rail, if so desired, and it can probably function quite well on its own as well, or so I have read at some point, years ago.

On another level, it would be a great way for "Detroit", i.e. the big three, to enter this sub-market.

They're not doing so because paradigm-shifting innovation is not exactly their game.

**Russix** · August-24-10, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Why haven't GM, Ford and Chrysler have started making buses like these? After all, there are some people who just don't need to be driving that are.

They could still make a profit from selling better buses than other auto companies.

Ford dropped out of the large size transit and school bus market decades ago. Although they do still make them based off their E-Series platform which also goes into lots of other utility vehicles like ambulances.

Daimler Chrysler was making transit vehicles but the commercial bus division went with Daimler when they split. They still make them too.

GM designed and built the RTS series buses in '77 and sold the line in '87 which even after being transferred to a few more owners remained in production till '09.

It is interesting to note that the majority of DDOT buses on the road today are typically running with a Detroit Diesel engine. If these companies could make a profit building complete buses, they would. I think it's more cost effective for smaller third party companies to buy parts from all of them and combine them into their final product lines.

**Russix** · August-24-10, 03:24 AM

Anyone remember the short-lived DDOT Express bus system from the Kwame Era? I think they should do that with SMART buses in the city and in really busy routes in the suburbs[[Michigan, Woodward, Gratiot) overlap them with another local bus. But nothing is ever done around here to improve anything, only to deal with yet another cut or appease voters after you underestimated their backlash.

**Hermod** · August-24-10, 05:19 AM

The problem with the Big 3 making buses is that there is not a constant demand. Detroit makes a big bus buy to get a system up, then there are no bus orders from Detroit until years later when the fleet begins to wear out. It is only if many cities use the same buses and you can get a constant flow of orders. The same occurs with rail equipment. Each order is unique and a single "job". As a result every new rail system has "teething" problems as the glitches which could have been worked out in mass production are worked through. No new rail cars today match the relibility of the old Budd RDC cars [[with their two-stroke Detroit Diesel engines)..

**ghettopalmetto** · August-24-10, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Everyone has already seen about the M1 rail and how it's suppose to be a catalyst for building a Metropolitan Transit System.

The M1 rail is a start, however, to use rail on all of the spokes that connect to Campus Maritus, would be expensive for the regional as a whole.

...

Bottom line: LRT is too expensive, let's apply it where we can, but apply alternatives where we can't.

LRT is "too expensive" compared to what? We've been through this time and again--to get bus service resembling anything close to "rapid" transit, the capital costs are often at least on par with LRT. There is no way, no how you can take a bumpy, diesel-belching bus and make it operate comparable to electric-powered rail--no matter how much molded plastic and nouveau graphics you use on the vehicle. People aren't stupid, so stop pretending that they'll be fooled by sexy graphics.

If people like you called the shots throughout American history, we'd still be driving our horses and buggies on dirt roads, and taking 3 week cruises to get to Europe.

**Hermod** · August-24-10, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If people like you called the shots throughout American history, we'd still be driving our horses and buggies on dirt roads, and taking 3 week cruises to get to Europe.

I didn't realize that 1890s electric railroad technology was all that "cutting edge".

How is your LRT going to be better than the old streetcars in technology?

**BShea** · August-24-10, 08:38 AM

BRT is a major component of the regional mass transit plan developed by John Hertel and approved by the Big 4 in December 2008.

That plan seems to be in limbo right now.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-24-10, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

I didn't realize that 1890s electric railroad technology was all that "cutting edge".

How is your LRT going to be better than the old streetcars in technology?

I never said that electric railroads are "cutting edge", but the technology works, doesn't it?

Do you have something that can transport more people in less physical space at a higher rate of speed for less cost? Folks like you have foisted your idealistic, Disney-esque 1950s vision of the future on us for decades. Maybe the rest of the world knows something that our pigeonholed highway engineers don't.

This isn't difficult. Keep it simple. No need to reinvent proven ideas.

**Detroitnerd** · August-24-10, 08:44 AM

Oooh! Buses that LOOK like rail vehicles and cost ALMOST AS MUCH as rail vehicles, but, unlike rail vehicles, are buses. Great idea.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-24-10, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Oooh! Buses that LOOK like rail vehicles and cost ALMOST AS MUCH as rail vehicles, but, unlike rail vehicles, are buses. Great idea.

I wonder if I make my pickup truck look like a Ferrari, will it ride like a Ferrari?

**Detroitnerd** · August-24-10, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I wonder if I make my pickup truck look like a Ferrari, will it ride like a Ferrari?

Put some racing stripes on there and it'll FEEL faster. Just like BRT! Whoa, I feel as though I'm on a train, but it's a bus. Whee!

**Hermod** · August-24-10, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I never said that electric railroads are "cutting edge", but the technology works, doesn't it?

Do you have something that can transport more people in less physical space at a higher rate of speed for less cost? Folks like you have foisted your idealistic, Disney-esque 1950s vision of the future on us for decades. Maybe the rest of the world knows something that our pigeonholed highway engineers don't.

This isn't difficult. Keep it simple. No need to reinvent proven ideas.

Your argument was that people who opposed LRT were stuck in the horse and buggy days. I pointed out the logical fallacy of that argument.

Yes, there is nothing more efficient than a steel wheel rolling on a steel rail. Every time I see an 18-wheeler rolling down the interstate, I fume that that beast isn't on an inter-modal car on the railroad paralleling the interstate. Much of the maintenance costs of the interstate system are caused by the heavy trucks [[particularly in the south where there are no frost heaves). I think we should pass legislation prohibiting trucking for more than 75 miles from an inter-modal terminal.

As far as passenger rail is concerned, I am all for it if it can be built quickly and operated efficiently [[from the passenger standpoint). That means shorter and more frequent trains. The problem with the existing bus system is that it doesn't run frequently enough, it doesn't have convenient connections to where I want to go, and the predominant ridership trashes the experience for others. How does your LRT solve those problems?

**ghettopalmetto** · August-24-10, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

Your argument was that people who opposed LRT were stuck in the horse and buggy days. I pointed out the logical fallacy of that argument.

I never made such an assertion. My statement was that if our history was full of people going around doing nothing except whining how "expensive" everything is, we'd never have invested a damned dime in our own well-being.

**mwilbert** · August-24-10, 09:56 AM

The people who don't like BRT have a strong tendency to overstate their arguments. If you want to make BRT that runs exactly like LRT, then it costs something like LRT. But there isn't any reason it has to run exactly like LRT; it can run a lot better than regular buses for a cost that is a lot less than LRT, and it can be implemented more quickly. It probably won't have whatever economic development effects people expect LRT to have. People who hate buses may not ride it. That doesn't mean it doesn't have an appropriate use.

NYC is introducing BRT in several areas [[ see http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/projectupdate.htm ) and my opinion is that they are doing this because they think it is their best feasible option, not because they are confused about the benefits of various forms of mass transit.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-24-10, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

The people who don't like BRT have a strong tendency to overstate their arguments. If you want to make BRT that runs exactly like LRT, then it costs something like LRT. But there isn't any reason it has to run exactly like LRT; it can run a lot better than regular buses for a cost that is a lot less than LRT, and it can be implemented more quickly. It probably won't have whatever economic development effects people expect LRT to have.

Then don't fucking sell BRT as "Just like trains on tires. Tee hee!"

Invariably, this is what is done in EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED CASE where BRT is implemented. People aren't dumb. Stop insulting their intelligence.

And if buses don't run like rapid transit, then they're not very "rapid" are they? I think there's a name for a mode like that. Oh, right--a fucking BUS.

**mwilbert** · August-24-10, 10:13 AM

Then don't fucking sell BRT as "Just like trains on tires. Tee hee!"

Invariably, this is what is done in EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED CASE where BRT is implemented. People aren't dumb. Stop insulting their intelligence.

And if buses don't run like rapid transit, then they're not very "rapid" are they? I think there's a name for a mode like that. Oh, right--a fucking BUS.

I don't think "rapid" is precisely defined term. In the context of transit I think it is reasonable to think it means faster than you would expect from other mass transit. And my opinion is that the term "Bus Rapid Transit" strongly implies the use of a bus, so I don't think that is particularly deceptive. I think there is a clear difference between how a regular bus service works and how a BRT service works. If you think they are equivalent, then we simply disagree.

**Detroitnerd** · August-24-10, 10:15 AM

Why would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system, which is rail-based. Buses are great feeder vehicles; what they do best is rip through low-density areas to feed rail systems, which move many more thousands of people on trunk lines very quickly. The main problem, from my perspective, is that Detroit doesn't even have the rail base. That's what we need up and running because it is a mode of choice, rides smoother, has a proven track record of moving more people more efficiently, and has a proven track record of attracting transit-oriented development, and has no exhaust at point of use. Build some trunk rail lines, and then I think we can talk about upgrading bus service to feed that rail-based system.

**ghettopalmetto** · August-24-10, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I don't think "rapid" is precisely defined term. In the context of transit I think it is reasonable to think it means faster than you would expect from other mass transit. And my opinion is that the term "Bus Rapid Transit" strongly implies the use of a bus, so I don't think that is particularly deceptive. I think there is a clear difference between how a regular bus service works and how a BRT service works. If you think they are equivalent, then we simply disagree.

The bus rapid transit line on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio has an average operating speed of 15 mph. What's so "rapid" about that???

Nothing. It's a God damned bus. That is all.

**bailey** · August-24-10, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The bus rapid transit line on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio has an average operating speed of 15 mph. What's so "rapid" about that???

Nothing. It's a God damned bus. That is all.

How fast is LRT REALLY going to go up an down woodard? Depending on what plan gets done [[sometime around 2050 at this rate) the damn thing is likely going to be stopping every 1/8th of a mile.

I'm with you that BRT is stupid, but what is proposed around here as LRT is just as stupid so I say go with the stupid idea that is cheaper.

**mwilbert** · August-24-10, 10:31 AM

would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system

NYC already had buses already to feed the subways. They are putting in the BRT because they are better for some purposes than regular buses, and can serve some areas not served by the subways. I'm not trying to draw some equivalence between NYC and Detroit, except to point out that some places with transit experience think that BRT has some advantages over other modes in some situations. That would seem like a fairly limited and obvious point, but some people don't seem to agree with it, and appear to assert that either regular buses or LRT will be superior in any given situation.

**Detroitnerd** · August-24-10, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

NYC already had buses already to feed the subways. They are putting in the BRT because they are better for some purposes than regular buses, and can serve some areas not served by the subways. I'm not trying to draw some equivalence between NYC and Detroit, except to point out that some places with transit experience think that BRT has some advantages over other modes in some situations. That would seem like a fairly limited and obvious point, but some people don't seem to agree with it, and appear to assert that either regular buses or LRT will be superior in any given situation.

Dude, Detroit hasn't had rail transit in 54 years. All of our commercial corridors, skyscrapers and dense thoroughfares were built around a light rail system. This isn't a matter of trying to think up some experiment that will work in Detroit. It's a matter of restoring the service that this environment was built around. But, OK, whatever, let's wait on that light rail thing for another 54 years and try lots of monorails, high-toned bus systems and other things that have no proven track record of working in Detroit. While we're at it, let's demolish a few more skyscrapers for more tremendous parking structures. That way, we won't have the density to support light rail and we'll be wedded forever to an expensive bus system where we have to buy new vehicles every few years. Idiocy.

**iheartthed** · August-24-10, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

NYC already had buses already to feed the subways. They are putting in the BRT because they are better for some purposes than regular buses, and can serve some areas not served by the subways. I'm not trying to draw some equivalence between NYC and Detroit, except to point out that some places with transit experience think that BRT has some advantages over other modes in some situations. That would seem like a fairly limited and obvious point, but some people don't seem to agree with it, and appear to assert that either regular buses or LRT will be superior in any given situation.

Keyword: some situations.

NYC is not proposing BRT as an alternative to the subway system. Instead, it is proposing it as a complimentary piece to the overall system, and to also act as an overflow for the subway.

I think the disconnect here is that some forum members are touting BRT as an alternative to Detroit needing to invest in rail transit... And well, it just isn't. So I'll just sum it all up in this paragraph:

Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system.

And then once that ball is rolling you can start talking about supplementary projects like BRT. But until then all other points are moot, and Detroit's transit system will never be World Class [[and likewise, the Detroit area will never again be a World Class region).

**bailey** · August-24-10, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Keyword: some situations.

NYC is not proposing BRT as an alternative to the subway system. Instead, it is proposing it as a complimentary piece to the overall system, and to also act as an overflow for the subway.

I think the disconnect here is that some forum members are touting BRT as an alternative to Detroit needing to invest in rail transit... And well, it just isn't. So I'll just sum it all up in this paragraph:

Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system. Detroit needs to invest in a rail system.

And then once that ball is rolling you can start talking about supplementary projects like BRT. But until then all other points are moot, and Detroit's transit system will never be World Class [[and likewise, the Detroit area will never again be a World Class region).

The "disconnect" is not the forum members touting it...its the Plan itself that is touting it. Which is why the entire plan is destined to fail.