Chesse: My understanding with regard to the Euclid route is that there is considerable time saving rush housrs because of bypassing traffic congestion.
The Utah Transit Authority has bus only lanes in West Valley City, which are used by the buses to Magna.
Johnny
gardendance Phoebe, please show us the sources to back up your statement. Also do you know if the people whom you say want rail are the ones who will pay the presumably higher costs? Haverford and Lower Merion Pennsylvania have for decades had a bus only route, a remnant of the Philadelphia and West Chester Traction-Philadelphia Suburban Transportation companies' Ardmore trolley.
Phoebe, please show us the sources to back up your statement. Also do you know if the people whom you say want rail are the ones who will pay the presumably higher costs?
Haverford and Lower Merion Pennsylvania have for decades had a bus only route, a remnant of the Philadelphia and West Chester Traction-Philadelphia Suburban Transportation companies' Ardmore trolley.
This is a moot point.
A) This discussion was dead 2 1/2 years ago until suddenly revived.
B) The lanes are still unused, but as Matthewsaggie said back then, the process is now under way to convert them to High Occupancy Toll lanes for automobiles. Local citizens are not happy about that, either.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Ottawa O-line, Boston Silver Line
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
There are numerous cities in Canada that have exclusive bus lanes. Some painted onto wide roads, others purpose built for buses only. Ottawa is converting at high cost and long construction a long EW stretch to LRT. The core will be a deep tunnel with 3 stations, the outskirts fully grade separated and a dozen mostly surface stations
They simple could not get any more bus through the core especially if snow, heavy rain, accident or breakdown. Complete operation expected Spring 2018
In terms of BRT operations, in the South side of the american continent, Curitiba is taking the lead, operating bi articulated buses on some 35 miles of BRT lanes(that looks like a DMU on rubber tyres)
watch?v=gLSo666mYY
Phoebe VetThe articulated buses you described are a bus with what is essentially a 5th wheel mounted semitrailer. They have been around for a long time, and are as stable at speed as any 5th wheel mounted semitrailer. The concept has been used by the truck industry for a very long time. Semitrailers are much more stable than trailers.
The difference is that the articulated bus has the 5th wheel behind the rear axle of the bus. That makes it inherently unstable and open to sway like a car pulling a trailer from a rear mounted hitch. It's just a matter of what speed unstable sway will occur (similar to hunting on a rail car, in this regard)
If you get the pivot point at or ahead of the rear axle, then the rig is stable - like a semi or a pickup or 5th wheel RV - no sway possible.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Except that ridership increases when electric vehicles replace diesel vehicles. Electric vehicles either trolleybuses or ligh-rail (streetcars!)
Seattle Transit's conversion of the diesel Ballard line to TT proved the point. Same route, same stops, same mix wiith auto traffic. Why did they do it? Possibly as an experiment, but more intellligent scheduling and greater efficiency gave them a surplus of TT's, and most of the route already had wire for other routes. And TT's, like streetcars, require far less maintenance than diesels. But Ballard is a heavy line, with more than 25,000/day I would guess.
In Chicago, route J14, the Jeffrey Jump, is being touted as BRT. Part of its route is an express routing on the Outer Drive, south of 67th Street, it runs on Jeffrey Blvd, which is not that wide, and shares the street with local routes. I'm not sure how much faster it is on the stretch on Jeffrey Blvd than the local routes.
Ashland Ave, which is relatively wide, is currently being studied for possible BRT service.
The articulated buses you described are a bus with what is essentially a 5th wheel mounted semitrailer. They have been around for a long time, and are as stable at speed as any 5th wheel mounted semitrailer. The concept has been used by the truck industry for a very long time. Semitrailers are much more stable than trailers. If anyone reading this doesn't understand the difference, a trailer carries it's own weight and the front of a semitrailer rests on the towing vehicle.
Separate right of way with station mounted fare collection is what makes LRT better than anything that runs in the road. IF BRT will run in a similar environment, it could be a valid alternative. Anything, whether it's wheels are rubber or steel, that runs on the road mixed with automobile traffic is no better than a traditional city bus.
The "Bus train" espoused by the BRT crowd is typically an articulated bus. Functionally, this is bus with a trailer. I'm sure it comes with some sort of speed restriction due to stability. Ride quality at highway speeds can't be great, either.
Modified city buses would make horrible BRT vehicles. Our local transit operator has tried (and is still using some) Orion CNG powered buses in express service gussied up with reclining seats. They are noisy, rough riding, slow (55 mph max), have lousy HVAC systems (heat or cool only - set up at garage each day, blown from overhead vents only), and narrow (8' wide, not 8.5' wide). Several of the originals have gone up in spectacular fires when the turbocharger blew.
There have been local proposals for BRT down the freeway median with "stations" in the median at overpasses. This would be bad at several levels. First, the noise and air quality on the platforms would just be awful. Second, half the problem with the freeway is the local access. Adding transit stops to the freeway just increased the congestion on the local roads leading to the freeway. Third, low floor articulated buses would be an awful ride.
As has been pointed out, "true" BRT, with separate ROW and stations is nearly as expensive to construct as LRT, but can't compete on comfort or "cache". Most of what gets called "BRT" is merely gussied up local bus service with traffic light activation and/or separate lanes at intersections.
OvermodMetro et al. did guidance with horizontal rubber-tired wheels acting on 'walls' in the guideway. I'd think comparatively expensive retrofitting would be necessary to provide this on modern buses.
I wasn't suggesting this as retrofitting, Bob. Almost all modern buses run on a regular roadway with other traffic so I don't think it would be possible.
However, were we building a true bus rapid transit system on a dedicated roadway we might want to consider it.
John
John WR BonasCan the buses MU as "Bus Trains"? Interesting question, Bonas. In both Paris and Montreal subways run on rubber tires. The do run in trains just line any other subways so there must be some sort of guide on the "track" they run on but I don't know exactly how it is done. But certainly the same thing could be done in other places with bus rapid transit. John
BonasCan the buses MU as "Bus Trains"?
Interesting question, Bonas. In both Paris and Montreal subways run on rubber tires. The do run in trains just line any other subways so there must be some sort of guide on the "track" they run on but I don't know exactly how it is done. But certainly the same thing could be done in other places with bus rapid transit.
Metro et al. did guidance with horizontal rubber-tired wheels acting on 'walls' in the guideway. I'd think comparatively expensive retrofitting would be necessary to provide this on modern buses. More modern approaches are available, both for guiding and for headway control.
The principal advantage here is not exactly "MU" (in the sense of eliminating the need for bus drivers on all units); it's providing essentially zero headway between multiple buses. There are a number of technological solutions that would permit this, but 'safety' might require a physical connection between the buses, and not just run them in close proximity or in contact.
I would not think physically MUing buses (to make the equivalent of long artics) would make much sense, as you'd need all sorts of servo controls, etc. On the flip side, you might be able to implement some kind of 'positive bus control' with that stuff (pity it isn't provided on, say, Dumpster trucks!)
Lane Transit District (Eugene / Springfield Oregon) has significant mileage of dedicated BRT lanes. Some completely separate from regular traffic lanes.
In addition to Ottawa, across the river Gatineau is adding dedicated bus rapid transit ((Rapibus) for over 10 miles alongside an unused rail line. It narrows to one lane over the shared railway bridge.
Both Montreal and Toronto have extensive dedicated bus lanes. Of course Toronto still also has an extensive streetcar network, partially on dedicated medians.
Ottawa has been building dedicated fully separated bus rapid transit for 30 years and has some 30 miles in operation. Downtown, Albert and Slater Streets have dedicated bus lanes with right turn restrictions. The core is at capacity and for $2 billion a tunnel is being dug through the core and medium LRT will replace BRT east and west. It will rise to the surface, and at great expense, 10 miles of the BRT and will be stations converted to LRT. In spite of the high cst of conversion, BRT is still being further expanded to the suburbs. In addition to 40' buses, there are 60' articulated buses and 40' double deckers that offer more seating for longer runs. All city buses in Ontario are now low floor for ease of entry and include wheelchair ramps for accessibility.
Bonasan the buses MU as "Bus Trains"?
Sam1 blue streak 1 SAM.: I believe Phoebe is closer to the information. People who have to ride a bus are considered to be riding a lower class service. Charlotte is a very upscale city and BRT rankels those who might have to take it and will eliminate some perentage of potential riders. According to an article in Railwy Age the costs of BRT are very much the same as light rail for the same level of grade separated service.. 1. ROW 2. Bridge and tunnel weight structure 3. Track costs vs pavement costs nearly same 4. Light rail CAT costs more even if electric buses are used for BRT although electric buses would seem to mitigate some dislikes of diesel buses. 5. Operating costs both direct and operator costs much less especially when several LRT units used as train. Opeerating costs are a continuing item for many years where as construction costs are immediate. Maintenance costs about the same 6. Any grade crossings of LRT will be blocked less often for same number of passengers. 7. Will be less complaints about priority signaling for LRT because of its higher capacity. 8. Much easier for low floor LRT cars . Other posters have noted low floor buses decrease capacity. As of 2010, according to the American Public Transit Fact Book, there were 1,206 public transit agencies in the U.S. that relied primarily on buses, 28 commuter rail systems, and 35 light rail systems. In most areas of the country, especially outside of the Northeast, buses are a better option than rail. If one defines Rapid Bus Technology as running on a dedicated right-of-way, similar to the system they have in Adelaide, South Australia, the cost would be as great as or nearly as great as the cost of light rail. But most of the proposals for RBT that I have seen, at least for Texas, don't envision a dedicated right-of-way in the sense that it is only for RBT. They don't need it. They simply need a way to make the bus route a bit quicker. And they can do that with stripped lanes, signal control, ease of getting on and off the bus, etc. The Adelaide system was very expensive and has not been duplicated anywhere else in Australia. I believe that there is a similar system in Germany. One of the advantages of the Adelaide system is the buses run from downtown along a dedicated guide-way for eight to ten miles. They leave the guide-way at various points or at the end and run as buses through the neighborhoods that they serve. Then its back to the guide-way and back downtown.
blue streak 1 SAM.: I believe Phoebe is closer to the information. People who have to ride a bus are considered to be riding a lower class service. Charlotte is a very upscale city and BRT rankels those who might have to take it and will eliminate some perentage of potential riders. According to an article in Railwy Age the costs of BRT are very much the same as light rail for the same level of grade separated service.. 1. ROW 2. Bridge and tunnel weight structure 3. Track costs vs pavement costs nearly same 4. Light rail CAT costs more even if electric buses are used for BRT although electric buses would seem to mitigate some dislikes of diesel buses. 5. Operating costs both direct and operator costs much less especially when several LRT units used as train. Opeerating costs are a continuing item for many years where as construction costs are immediate. Maintenance costs about the same 6. Any grade crossings of LRT will be blocked less often for same number of passengers. 7. Will be less complaints about priority signaling for LRT because of its higher capacity. 8. Much easier for low floor LRT cars . Other posters have noted low floor buses decrease capacity.
SAM.: I believe Phoebe is closer to the information. People who have to ride a bus are considered to be riding a lower class service. Charlotte is a very upscale city and BRT rankels those who might have to take it and will eliminate some perentage of potential riders. According to an article in Railwy Age the costs of BRT are very much the same as light rail for the same level of grade separated service..
1. ROW
2. Bridge and tunnel weight structure
3. Track costs vs pavement costs nearly same
4. Light rail CAT costs more even if electric buses are used for BRT although electric buses would seem to mitigate some dislikes of diesel buses.
5. Operating costs both direct and operator costs much less especially when several LRT units used as train. Opeerating costs are a continuing item for many years where as construction costs are immediate. Maintenance costs about the same
6. Any grade crossings of LRT will be blocked less often for same number of passengers.
7. Will be less complaints about priority signaling for LRT because of its higher capacity.
8. Much easier for low floor LRT cars . Other posters have noted low floor buses decrease capacity.
As of 2010, according to the American Public Transit Fact Book, there were 1,206 public transit agencies in the U.S. that relied primarily on buses, 28 commuter rail systems, and 35 light rail systems. In most areas of the country, especially outside of the Northeast, buses are a better option than rail.
If one defines Rapid Bus Technology as running on a dedicated right-of-way, similar to the system they have in Adelaide, South Australia, the cost would be as great as or nearly as great as the cost of light rail. But most of the proposals for RBT that I have seen, at least for Texas, don't envision a dedicated right-of-way in the sense that it is only for RBT. They don't need it. They simply need a way to make the bus route a bit quicker. And they can do that with stripped lanes, signal control, ease of getting on and off the bus, etc.
The Adelaide system was very expensive and has not been duplicated anywhere else in Australia. I believe that there is a similar system in Germany. One of the advantages of the Adelaide system is the buses run from downtown along a dedicated guide-way for eight to ten miles. They leave the guide-way at various points or at the end and run as buses through the neighborhoods that they serve. Then its back to the guide-way and back downtown.
One thing about BRT is that can use existing equipement and some line paint and your ready to go..In theory. ...Rochester had a bus lane on the outbound charlotte line for 20 years and then they forgot about it. I figure if you start with BRT and do it on the cheap if it fails then theres no big loss. But Gov. never seems to do things on the cheap. Anyway many of the plans comming to frution now where done during the Bush Jr Adminstation when the FTA had high hurdles for new rail of any kind outside the Mega Big Citys like Chicago,New York, LA, Houston.
BonasNYC- has bus lanes but everyone ignores them
I was in Manhattan two weeks ago, Bonas, and rode the M4 bus from Penn Station (34th St.) to 82nd St. The auto traffic stayed out of my bus lane except at intersections where people were turning right. In New York the right turners are a lot of people and that delayed things. Buses are much slower than subways but they are not impossible. My wife and I often take buses in Manhattan because the subways can have a lot of steps that buses don't have.
People who attend public meetings are expressing the views of "people who attend public meetings" They are usually different than the people. More often than not they represent a tiny minority of the population. Their views usually do not represent those of the population as a whole.
Determining what the people think (their views) about any subject requires a sophisticated statistical sample that can be projected to the population. Obtaining the sample, as well as the views, without unduly biasing the outcomes, is a challenging exercise. It is so challenging that very few people engage in it.
In Minneapolis and St. Paul there is about a one mile section of dedicated busway used to connect the Minneapolis and St. Paul Campuses of the UofM.
Matthewsaggie is the person with the best information on all of these CATS projects.
The "people" are the people who attend the public planning meetings. They are mostly people who live near the end point of the proposed line and who work in city center. The road they have to drive now is severely clogged during rush hour. That road is being upgraded and during the upgrade two lanes are being built in the middle, separated by concrete barriers, to be used by BRT. The people who will be served can see how well the light rail is working for their neighbors to the west. CATS says if the money becomes available they can lay rail in the busway, but that the current plan is BRT.
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=pw268887zg5b&lvl=18.75&dir=1.78&sty=x~lat~35.214728~lon~-80.807032~alt~185.7954~z~30~pid~5082&app=5082&FORM=LMLTCC
Phoebe,
i don,t think we are getting BRT or LRT on the southeast line out here to Matthews. The current plan is to convert the Independence busway into tolled HOT lanes, extending them to Wallace lane in the project that started this month. These will ultimately be extended through Matthews and I-485 to tie into the Monroe by- pass, if we can ever get that project out of the courts. The HOT lanes will also offer "enhanced express bus service". We are looking at a longer term plan for street car (now named CityLYNX) out Monroe Rd. I think longer term is very long term, unless new finance plan we published last week works and is supported, but I have my doubts with our current G.A. PM me at office if you won't more details.
A 4TH CITY IS SEATTLE WITH ITS bUS tUNNEL WITH STATIONS
NOW ALSO USED BY LIGHT RAIL SHARED
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.