Bus Rapid Transit

[BrushStart]

BRT is great if the goal is creating additional transit. But, if the goal is to spur development, improve density, and build serious infrastructure appealing to businesses and residents, then BRT does nothing more than conventional buses. Personally, Detroit needs all of the above, which is why LRT is the sensible way to go. Why would one buy a product that only accomplishes 1/4 of the region's needs, when for a little more, we can get the whole package. We do need more mass transit, but we more desperately need the tangential benefits associated with permanent transit infrastructure- LRT.

LRT and BRT will both move people, but LRT will have a profound impact on the viability and success of the region, BRT will not.

[rb336]

It appears from the map on the mta site that the BRT will run through the flatlands, the one part of brooklyn that has no rail service and is the least-dense part of NYC in terms of population [[trains end @ flatbush/ Brooklyn College) and another runs on trainless staten island. the bronx line is unfamililiar, but the east side manhattan routes mirror THE most crowded lines

[mwilbert]

I think there should be LRT down Woodward rather than BRT. I agree that there would be development advantages. I don't think it would be much faster, but that isn't relevant, and "much" faster is arguable.

That isn't the same as thinking that BRT is just the same as buses. It isn't, but it seems people who really want LRT let that blind them to the good points of BRT.

[ghettopalmetto]

Since BRT proponents are always talking about how much "cheaper" BRT is than rail, let's look at some numbers.

These numbers are from the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority for 2008. I'd be interested to see the 2009 data when it becomes available, to see if they break out the Euclid Avenue BRT line as a separate mode.

I picked Cleveland as an example, because of its similarities in geography, history, demographics and built form when compared to Detroit.

Mode / Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile / Unlinked Trips Per Vehicle Mile

Bus / $1.02 / 2.42
Light Rail / $0.71 / 4.08
Heavy Rail / $0.47 / 3.73

SOURCE: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/5015.pdf

[ghettopalmetto]

That isn't the same as thinking that BRT is just the same as buses. It isn't, but it seems people who really want LRT let that blind them to the good points of BRT.

And just what are the "good points" of BRT?

[Detroitnerd]

And just what are the "good points" of BRT?

FLEXIBILITY!

[Tig3rzhark]

FLEXIBILITY!

Ease of changing how that route is ran, compared to LRT. If construction had to be done within an LRT area, that service would slow or be halted temporary.

With BRT, the route could be temporarily rerouted to continue service.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ease of changing how that route is ran, compared to LRT. If construction had to be done within an LRT area, that service would slow or be halted temporary.

With BRT, the route could be temporarily rerouted to continue service.

You want to offer a PERMANENT level of inferior service [[and forego economic development associated with the permanance of rail) in order to accommodate circumstances that MIGHT occur.

Gee, why did we ever build the Interstate Highway System? I mean, if we would ever need to do construction on the Interstates, it might SLOW the traffic for a temporary period of time. The horrors!!!

My God. It almost makes you wonder how cities with REAL transit even survive!

Did the thought ever occur to you that the lack of permanence of buses is what makes them such easy targets for budget-cutting ideologues who would rather dump transit funding money into say, widenings of I-75?

[DetroitPlanner]

Mode / Operating Expense Per Passenger Mile / Unlinked Trips Per Vehicle Mile

Bus / $1.02 / 2.42
Light Rail / $0.71 / 4.08
Heavy Rail / $0.47 / 3.73

SOURCE: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/5015.pdf

Using the same source DDOT's operating expense per passenger mile is very close to the light rail number but DTC's is $3.75.

What are the capital costs for each mode?

The NEPA process for M-1 should review all of these things in an open process.

[ghettopalmetto]

Using the same source DDOT's operating expense per passenger mile is very close to the light rail number but DTC's is $3.75.

Part of that is due to the population density of the service area. DDOT serves 870,000 or so people within 139 square miles. Greater Cleveland RTA serves a population of 1.3 million over an area of 440 square miles.

In other words, DDOT buses are less apt to "go empty" when travelling through areas of low [[suburban) population density, so they would have a higher passenger load, and thus lower operating expense per passenger mile. It's really an apples-to-oranges comparison, though. The idea to take away is not the absolute costs, but the difference in operating costs between bus versus rail transit.

[Hypestyles]

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.

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).

I concur. A rail system going up woodward, grand river, and gratiot are needed. Rapid transit buses are needed as well. Since the taxpayer bailout of GM and Chrysler first happened, I felt that the government should have forced both firms to get involved with mass-transit products such as next-gen buses and the rail cars needed for a rail line; have Detroit be the pilot project; i sent out dozens of letters to the White House on down, but of course, here we are, with the IPO getting ready to happen and the only thing to show for it is the $41K Volt..

[canuck]

ghettopalmetto;175557]Then don't fucking sell BRT as "Just like trains on tires. Tee hee!"

GT, that's a funny one, actually the Montreal Metro cars runs on tires, and a chinese company managed to stop a contract to be granted by the transit authority to Bombardier/Alstom consortium to build the new trains. The chinese claim the transit authority as no right to ask for pneumatic rolling stock as opposed to the steeel wheel cars they are proposing. So the overdue trainset is pushed back again. Imgine the bidder claims that the client has no right to cue contractors on technicalities like wheels and bogies, etc... Far fetched? It is being fought in the courts as we speak...

[JimminyCricket]

>>Why would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system, which is rail-based.<<

That is how it works in Toronto, but NYC has buses that run long distances, even from the outer boroughs into Manhattan. It also has buses in Manhattan that run along the same streets as subways do.

[iheartthed]

>>Why would NYC use buses? Buses are FEEDER VEHICLES for the main system, which is rail-based.<<

That is how it works in Toronto, but NYC has buses that run long distances, even from the outer boroughs into Manhattan. It also has buses in Manhattan that run along the same streets as subways do.

Rarely does anyone in NYC take a bus more than a mile on a route that is served by a train line. Buses that run along the same route as subways are used for short haul trips, either to a local destination or to a subway station for a longer trip. Just because a bus runs parallel to a subway does not mean that it isn't still acting as a feeder, since bus stops are generally spaced every two blocks and subway stops roughly every half mile.

[ghettopalmetto]

The high-tech wave of the future! Or not!

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.

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

[bailey]

The high-tech wave of the future! Or not!



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

Great, but since they are going to put the train in traffic anyway, why not build the cheapest option?

[professorscott]

It's not necessarily the case that the Woodward light rail line will be in mixed traffic. That's one of several competing options, and we'll have to wait to see what happens.

It would be interesting to find out why the Cleveland "rapid" bus isn't very rapid. Those systems can actually work pretty well, but only when they're developed with all the necessary characteristics. Just for one tiny example, if you let people pay cash when they board the bus, it will never be rapid [[ask anyone who ever rides a bus).

BRT definitely has its place, but unfortunately planners tend to cut corners and the result tends to be, as Cleveland has discovered, a really expensive version of an ordinary fixed-route bus.

[ghettopalmetto]

Cleveland's Euclid Corridor route uses prepayment of fares. Passengers purchase farecards at the station, and enforcement is through the "honor system". Police have the right to request proof of fare payment of passengers on the vehicles.

Even still, the *scheduled* average speed is a whopping 13 mph. In practice, as noted by GCRTA's own data, average travel speeds along the route have been less than 10 mph. I'm not convinced that's worth $200 million. I tend to think that if they had simply instituted prepayment of fares on the old #6 bus, they would have achieved the same results, but without tens of millions of dollars of FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDS spent on streetscaping.

[professorscott]

I agree, Ghetto. What I'm curious about, is why is the service so slow? If it's not on-board fare payment, it must be some other reason.

Anyone have any idea?

[JBMcB]

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.

Excellent point. Disney was going to extend the monorail at Disney World to the new parks, but the cost had become prohibitively expensive for the buildout. They looked at light rail, but it had the same problems - the high build-out cost would take decades to recoup in reduced operating expenses over buses, and adding routes would cost even more. They have an incredibly efficient bus system in it's stead.

Light rail can be a fantastic solution, but only assuming traffic and population patterns remain constant. A line that makes sense now might not make any sense in fifteen years. LA has had this problem with Metro Rail - it requires huge subsidies to keep it running as the original layout doesn't service LA's evolving traffic patterns.

[ghettopalmetto]

Light rail can be a fantastic solution, but only assuming traffic and population patterns remain constant. A line that makes sense now might not make any sense in fifteen years. LA has had this problem with Metro Rail - it requires huge subsidies to keep it running as the original layout doesn't service LA's evolving traffic patterns.

Yet we're supposed to believe that far-more-expensive freeways are moveable???

[[Have you ever noticed that the New York City Subway is over 100 years old, yet New York hasn't experienced the same "evolving traffic patterns" that places like Los Angeles and Atlanta have???)

Which one is the chicken and which one is the egg?

Do you think Henry Huntington built the Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles fearing that traffic patterns might "evolve" in the future?

[Detroitnerd]

Yet we're supposed to believe that far-more-expensive freeways are moveable???

[[Have you ever noticed that the New York City Subway is over 100 years old, yet New York hasn't experienced the same "evolving traffic patterns" that places like Los Angeles and Atlanta have???)

Which one is the chicken and which one is the egg?

Do you think Henry Huntington built the Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles fearing that traffic patterns might "evolve" in the future?

Uh, yeah, but, um, cars are really all I understand, so, um, I just tell myself soothing falsities to justify that which I am familiar with and to explain away that which I don't understand.

[JBMcB]

Yet we're supposed to believe that far-more-expensive freeways are moveable???

No, but if the New Center to 8 and Woodward spar becomes underutilized, moving the express station up one mile to 9 is a lot easier than laying another mile of track.

[[Have you ever noticed that the New York City Subway is over 100 years old, yet New York hasn't experienced the same "evolving traffic patterns" that places like Los Angeles and Atlanta have???)

Right, because NYC has pretty much always had a dense population pattern. It also helps that it's an island, so ports/jobs were just about everywhere, ensuring continuous population density.

The metropolitan LA area [[and Detroit) have nothing but room to grow.

Do you think Henry Huntington built the Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles fearing that traffic patterns might "evolve" in the future?

No, but I bet a lot of coach builders and blacksmiths were unhappy about the project. In fact, I remember seeing some rather amusing propaganda by the trades guilds showing how the dangerous new electric trolleys would slaughter pedestrians under their iron wheels in a museum somewhere or other.

It comes down to why you want a public transportation system. If it's to serve the public at large as an efficient and flexible transportation system, right now, buses are the way to go. If you want to affect some sort of social engineering through mass transit, a rail system is doomed to fail.

[fryar]

It would be interesting to find out why the Cleveland "rapid" bus isn't very rapid.

Because they didn't build BRT. They just bought a nicer bus.

From http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010...ng_slower.html:
Buses may be moving slower because the city, in trying to adjust the traffic lights, disconnected a component in the signals that allows a bus to continue in its dedicated lane through an intersection, even though the light has turned red for other vehicles.

This warrants a collective facepalm.

[Jason]

In the 1950s, bus' flexibility was viewed as a virtue, but it turned out that when the routes and stops can be moved so easily, developers don't have much confidence in them being there in the long term. Business decisions aren't made based on bus stops, so the development benefits from light rail don't happen. The permanence of light rail is actually a good thing.

Also, since development tends to cluster around light rail stops, its ridership is actually reinforcing. Businesses locate near the stops, which increases ridership, which makes the stations more attractive to businesses. More businesses are set up and it increases ridership more. This makes the system a lot more efficient and user friendly, since over time, more and more of people's destinations are concentrated along the route.