Trains.com

BRT vs LRT

12425 views
46 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:21 PM

daveklepper
Of course I have also seen a lot of new light rail stations poorly designed from a pasenger interchange with bus and leaving or entering the station highway safety factor .  I could name some examples but why bother.

I'm sure you have seen light rail stations poorly designed from a passenger interchange with bus lines, Dave.  In the example I describe the light rail tracks might have run right into the Trenton Transit Center along side the other tracks.  That would have made a more convenient and much safer connection to New Jersey Transit, Septa and Amtrak trains.  

Another, even worse, example is the Bloomfield Avenue station of the Newark Lightrail.  This station has two tracks and side platforms.  When it was built each platform had two stairways, one to the inbound side of Bloomfield Avenue and one to the outbound side.  At some point one stairway was closed off.  This means that trains in each direction can only be reached from one side of the street; if you are on the wrong side of the street you must cross it.  Also, if, God forbid, you are waiting on the platform and there is some threat between you and the stairway you have no place to which to retreat.  In this case New Jersey Transit has created a risk in their stations that was not there before NJT took over.  I can only wonder why.  

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM

Since most transfer points at intermediate points are at right angles to each other, an elevated crosswalk or a bus turnaround would be required to eliminate the need for passengers to cross the street to make connections.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:49 AM

I did not mean to imply that retrograde technology is obsolete or bad technology.   I am a member of the Market Street Railway Association and support the F line and future E line fully.   Streetcars are still useful and even mixed with autos can handle more people past a point than buses and with heavy use are more economical to operate on a per passenger basis.   Of course I have also seen a lot of new light rail stations poorly designed from a pasenger interchange with bus and leaving or entering the station highway safety factor .  I could name some examples but why bother.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:13 PM

Dave,  

I don't disagree with you that running streetcars is a retrograde technology.  Take the same vehicles off the streets and they are modern technology.  

But it seems to me that simply putting rubber tires on a vehicle and setting that vehicle down on a street is not really different.  

And it also seems to me that we need to re think our public transit philosophy to get away from the danger of mixed private vehicles and public transit on streets.  I know we won't really do that because politically the money is just not available to do it.  However, we should be conscious of that when we do make improvements to our transit system.  

For example, several years ago New Jersey Transit installed the Riverline, a light rail line from Trenton to Camden.  For almost the whole length (except for a short section in Camden) the line has its own right of way.  At Trenton Transit Center (railroad station) the tracks are far beneath street level.  However, instead of putting the Riverline tracks close to them the tracks were brought up to the level of the street.  To get to TTC or a bus stop to down town it is necessary to cross South Clinton Avenue, a busy street.  Originally the bus stop to go out to the Hamilton suburbs was at the Riverline station; however it was moved forcing people who want to use it to cross another busy street.  Thus, while the Riverline station might have been constructed to avoid the risk of street crossings instead the risk of being hit by a car was increased by the Riverline.  That's what I call retrograde.  

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:52 AM

The MUNI Metro is not pure light rail but a blend of light rail and streetcar, since when leaving the western portal of the Sunset and Twin Peaks tunnels, the Breda light rail cars behave like normal streetcars, ditto line "T" on Third Avenue (Third Street?).    This is also true of Boston's E line from Brigham Circle to Heath Street.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:37 PM

          I would point out that most of San Francisco's "light rail" routes run in a subway under Market St not on the surface.   

      The only route that runs on the surface on Market St is the F, which is using the historical fleet. 

Thx IGN

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:47 AM

Light rail that runs mainly in the street with lanes shared with auto traffic is no longer light rail but streetcars.

There may be locations where streetcars are still useful.  But is a retrograde, a past technology, not a present or future one.   Even cable cars have their use in San Francisco and horsecars in Douglass, Isle of Man.  Portland apparently has a useful streetcar system, Toronto a modern one integrated with some light rail, Kenosha, New Orleans, and San Francisco are other examples.  These are successful streetcar lines in modern conditions.   Even though an old technology, a streetcar line still can handle more passengers past a given point than buses, even though mixed with other traffic.  And it can integrate with Light Rail as does the E line in Boston and all of the Philadelphia subway-surface lines,   I cannot subscribe to "Rails should NEVER be used in the street."   I would rather say, "Avoid the use of rails in the street if possible."  

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Monday, December 10, 2012 8:10 PM

You are correct, Streak.  Over all ridership has increased for the last 7 consecutive quarters.  Light rail has the largest increase followed by heavy rail and then by bus.  This could be the beginning of a trent toward more and more transit use.  

Here is a link:  http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/121210.aspx

John

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, December 10, 2012 6:25 PM

Now the APTA announces that the 1st 3 quarters of this year that LRT ridership increased the most of all modes  (others heavy rail & bus )

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, December 8, 2012 10:00 AM

Initially the promoters for the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail system envisioned an under ground transit tunnel through downtown Dallas. In fact, they envisioned two routes; one underground and one on a separate transit-way. That's about as separate as it gets. Until they looked at the price tag!  They decided that a street level transit way, partially dedicated to light rail, was more practicable. And affordable!

Initially the promotors of DART's rail program wanted to use heavy rail, e.g. Atlanta's MARTA, until they found out that the cost would be substantially greater than light rail. When they realized that it would shave just 2.5 minutes off the running time from Forest Lane to downtown Dallas, a distance of approximately 10.5 miles, they decided on the light rail because it was affordable.

Two or three years ago DART commissioned a highly regarded economics professor at the University of North Texas to evaluate the impact of DART's light rail on economic development around the light rail stations.  He was able to point to the development of apartments and retail shops at Mockingbird Station and apartments in downtown Plano. That's just two stations, although additional apartments are being built along the Green line near Southwestern Medical Center.

What he did not say is that the most impressive developments in the Dallas area have taken place far from the light rail stations, i.e. Uptown Dallas, Addison, Los Colinas, etc. How do I know? I lived in Uptown for five years. I could walk downtown quicker than back track on a bus to catch the light rail at City Place. Furthermore, he overlooked the fact that in Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, etc. there has been significant development, due in large part to the growth of Texas, and none of these communities have light rail. 

Texas has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 25 years. People need places to live, work, shop, etc. And developers have responded with apartments, townhouses, retail outlets, etc. irrespective of whether there is any light rail or for that matter public transport nearby. These cities are served by fairly decent bus systems, although Austin has an inefficient commuter rail service. Given that only three to five per cent of Texans use public transport, they are more than adequate.  And a significant percentage of them don't have any alternative.

What is missing in these discussions is how to pay for light rail and commuter rail, other than to raid the federal treasury, which is heavily stressed.  

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Friday, December 7, 2012 8:13 PM

CATS has already ordered 22 additional SR-70s.

I'm not positive, but I believe lengthening the platforms is built into the Blue Line Extension project.

A full-funding grant agreement providing $580m towards the cost of extending Charlotte’s LYNX Blue line was announced by Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff on October 16.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, December 7, 2012 6:31 PM

Phoebe Vet

Dave;  will the blue line be able to handle this additional traffic ?  How is the planning going for making that route 3 unit capable ?  Has consideration been made to make some trips not cover the full route ? Are more cars going to be ordered for the blue line ?

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Friday, December 7, 2012 6:02 PM

To add to your point, Dave, economic development around stations is one thing that rail transit is all about and always has been all about.  

I also agree that a dedicated right of way is the only way that makes sense for any kind of rapid transit.  Even if a street has a low enough volume of traffic to allow mass transit to move at a reasonable speed we know that over time that street will attract more traffic and any speed advantage of mass transit will be lost.  Also, if we start with a street system and later seek to move it to a dedicated right of way over time land costs will have gone up adding to the expense of the system.  It isn't exactly rocket science to understand the principle of "Do it right the first time."

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Friday, December 7, 2012 5:44 PM

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Friday, December 7, 2012 2:44 PM

oltmannd

Phoebe Vet

If it runs in the street with no additional infrastructure is not BRT it is just a bus.

Sort of like, "If it runs in the street with no additional infrastructure is not Light Rail it is just a trolley car."?

Light rail cannot run in the street with no  additional infrastructure.  It requires track and an electric source.  That said, I do not believe that rail of any kind belongs in the street.  The dedicated right of way is one of rail's biggest advantages.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Friday, December 7, 2012 12:21 PM

oltmannd

Phoebe Vet

If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not BRT it is just a bus.

Sort of like, "If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not Light Rail it is just a trolley car."?

Yes.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 7, 2012 12:21 PM

blue streak 1
a bus IMHO does not ride as well as a LRT

Oh, I don't know....It depends a lot on the bus.  An MCI D4500 rides as well as most light rail lines I've ridden - as long as you sit forward of the rear axles.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, December 7, 2012 12:18 PM

Phoebe Vet

If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not BRT it is just a bus.

Sort of like, "If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not Light Rail it is just a trolley car."?

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:43 PM

No, Sam.  I've never been to Austin.  And I cannot give you the names of people who disagree with you.  But certainly you don't believe that everyone in Austin agrees with you, or at least I hope you don't.  All I am saying is that there are people in Austin who disagree with you.  I certainly would not deny that there are people in New Jersey who disagree with me.  And remember, this is America.  We all have opinions on just about everything.  People who are not transportation planners have opinions about transportation.    Most of all, I don't challenge your position.  You live in Austin, clearly you are intelligent and you have well thought out views.  But there is no disrespect to you in saying that there are people in Austin who disagree with you.  

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 10:37 PM

John WR

Sam,  

I did some net surfing about Austin and I learned that that not all Austin citizens agree with you.  However, certainly some do agree with you.  I think your work is to persuade your fellow citizens of your position.  What I think here in New Jersey don't make no nevermind.  Since putting buses on existing streets is a lot cheaper than building a dedicated right of way I think your position will most likely prevail.

John 

Who are these citizens?  Are they transportation planners?  Have you ever been to Austin?  If the answer is yes, when?  

It has nothing to do with my position. Capital Metro planners have decided that BRT is the best solution for the planned application.  San Antonio has decided that buses, including BRT, are the best solution for its current needs, although they may opt for light rail 20 to 30 years from now.  

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 8:25 PM

Sam,  

I did some net surfing about Austin and I learned that that not all Austin citizens agree with you.  However, certainly some do agree with you.  I think your work is to persuade your fellow citizens of your position.  What I think here in New Jersey don't make no nevermind.  Since putting buses on existing streets is a lot cheaper than building a dedicated right of way I think your position will most likely prevail.

John

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:46 PM

John WR

Well, yes, Sam.  BRT does have a variety of flavors.  Yes, you can put up special bus shelters and paint buses special colors and given them traffic controls so the lights will stay green for them.  But if they run on city streets they will have to share the streets with traffic.  When the streets are gridlocked the buses, which are a lot bigger than cars, will be gridlocked too.   Even special bus lanes will get backed up with a lot of other buses going on other routes.  But what you will not have is rapid transit.  Anyone who says that this is rapid transit is trying to fool all of the people all of the time.  

Of course you can build dedicated bus ways and have true bus rapid transit.  But I still ask where the big cost savings is if you have dedicated busways and have to buy the land and pave the streets just for the busways.

John 

The point that I have apparently not been able to get across is that there are numerous places in the United States where BRT can operate on existing roadways, with some technological improvements, and not be mired in gridlock. The proposed route in Austin, TX, is not encumbered by gridlock. RBT is the best solution according to the professional transport planners.

The cost of the proposed RBT in Austin is $1.3 million per mile. The cost to build a light rail system is $48 to $50 million a mile. One does not even need to do the math to understand that the BRT is a much better alternative than laying a light rail line along Lamar Blvd. in Austin.  Or Preston Road in Dallas.  There is no way that the operating cost spread between the light rail and the BRT will recapture the capital cost differentials. The math does not work.

This year I have traveled to San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Jacksonville, Miami, Key West, and New Orleans. Plus numerous trips to Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso and Brownsville. In most of the locations that I have visited, I have sampled the public transport. I am too cheap, erh frugal, to pay for a taxi.

Here is something that I have learned from my travels. The United States is a very large country. And it is a very diverse country with diverse transport needs. What is a good public transport solution in Texas may not be a good solution in New Jersey and vice versa.

A person living in Texas who thinks that he knows what is best for Chicago has a fool for a guide. And the same thing applies to people outside of Texas who believe that they know what would work best in Texas or anywhere else outside of where they live and work.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:22 PM

Well, yes, Sam.  BRT does have a variety of flavors.  Yes, you can put up special bus shelters and paint buses special colors and given them traffic controls so the lights will stay green for them.  But if they run on city streets they will have to share the streets with traffic.  When the streets are gridlocked the buses, which are a lot bigger than cars, will be gridlocked too.   Even special bus lanes will get backed up with a lot of other buses going on other routes.  But what you will not have is rapid transit.  Anyone who says that this is rapid transit is trying to fool all of the people all of the time.  

Of course you can build dedicated bus ways and have true bus rapid transit.  But I still ask where the big cost savings is if you have dedicated busways and have to buy the land and pave the streets just for the busways.

John

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 5:09 AM

To have close to 8000 passengers per hour for bus rapid transit, it is necessary to double the lanes at stops, so that one bus can pass another.    8000 passengers per hour is a general figure and particular circumstances can alter it.   For example, does an existing railroad or disused highway or what ever already exist?  If so, even for just part of the distance, the figure can be lowered for good economics for LRT.   Is there no way to fit a right of way wide enough for bus rapid transit in the landscape, urbanscape, but a narrower right of way suitable for rail vehicles can be fitted.   If so, then it is no longer a comparison between LRT and BRT, but between LRT and buses on a city street.   Then the figure drops to something like 2500 passenger per hour, a bus every three minutes.   Cannot even fit a lane for LRT through the city?   OK, a streetcar line in mixed traffic can also handle an articulated train every three minutes and can handle 200 passengers in each vehicle, for 4,000 passengers per hour in one lane.

The Pittsburgh eastside bus BRT has the pull-off lanes at bus stops.   I don't know what California does.

It is possible to design a guided bus system, and there are such in Europe, where BRT lanes can be as narrow as LRT lanes.   And such a bus can use normal steering when off the BRT line.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:49 PM

As I recall, Sam, Shirley DeLibero came to Dallas and saw to it that the light rail got built.  Before she worked in Dallas she was Executive Director of New Jersey Transit.  She is remembered for giving large raises to top management officials for no particular reason.  

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:20 PM

Phoebe Vet

If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not BRT it is just a bus. 

That's not correct. BRT comes in a variety of flavors.   

You don't live in Austin, so you don't know what is planned for our fair city.  And my guess is that you have not been to many other cities to see what they serve up.  Most of us haven't.  

Since retiring I have traveled widely throughout the United States.  Two things have impressed me.  The U.S. is a very large country.  And it is very diverse.  What might work in one city does not necessarily mean that it would work everywhere.  Based on my observations, as well as readings, BRT is a good solution for many communities.  

Oh, by the way, you failed to answer any of the questions that I posed.  You know!  The basis of your market survey regarding people not riding BRT or buses in general because they favor light rail.  What is the basis for this conclusion?

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:53 PM

If it runs in the street with no additional infrastucture it is not BRT it is just a bus.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:19 PM

A key question is whether you need a system that can handle a throughput of 16,000 passengers per hour.  Clearly, this is not the case in Austin or San Antonio, and it is not likely to be the case.  Likewise, it is not the case in Dallas, which has built the most extensive light rail system in the southwest.

The average throughput on DART's light rail system is 1,884 passengers per hour.  The average rush hour throughput is 6,280 during the morning and evening rush hour. Neither of these figures come close to 16,000.  Moreover, the average passenger loads on DART's light rail lines, when adjusted for system expansion, have remained relatively stagnate. 

As noted in my previous post, there are areas of the country where light rail is the optimum choice.  But not every area! For the country as a whole, buses (rapid or otherwise) are a better public transit choice.

The BRT in Austin will run on city streets. It will not require capital intensive rights-of-way. And it will cost a small fraction of the estimated cost for the proposed light rail line, even adjusting for the difference in operating costs and the life expectancy of the capital equipment.

BRT can compete with light rail times for distances of 12 to 15 miles.  After that trains (light rail and commuter rail) win the race.

I lived in Australia for five years. Whilst there I traveled to Adelaide monthly on business. Adelaide has the O-Bahn, which is a 7.5 mile guided bus way. I have ridden it numerous times. The buses run at speeds up to 62.5 mph on a dedicated track. At interchanges they can leave the guideway and serve neighborhoods without requiring passengers to change mode of transit. The system offers flexibility that is impossible with rail. The system was costly, although no more than comparable light rail systems, but the City Council has scaled back plans to extend the system because of the cost. It has found that regular buses are more cost effective for a city like Adelaide. The system is not widespread throughout the world, but it is an indication of an alternative that may be a better fit than light rail.

I would like to see the studies that say people will ride light rail but would not ride a bus. I would like to understand the methodologies that drove the studies. And I would like to know whether the people conducting the survey told the respondents the cost and pricing differences. 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, December 4, 2012 3:15 PM

The "Catch 22" for BRT is generally that if you build it out complete with dedicated ROW and it's own stations and all the bells and whistles for the urban "last mile", what you have is a light rail line on rubber tires.   Same cost, same capacity*,  etc. So, you might as well do rail and get the "cache" - and a bit more safety.

If you try to do it on the cheap, you wind up with a gussied up urban bus route and it becomes apples and oranges.

The problem is that when BRT is proposed, it's never clear what's being talked about.  Often, it is the "on the cheap" version - just some driver controlled lights and by-pass lanes.

*there is a trade-off between the stopping distance of a bus and the capacity of a light rail train.  You can get more per train, but more buses per minute through-put.  They wash.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy