Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Transit
»
Will "BRT" begin the end of new "LRT" development?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
In some instances commuter rail, especially if it can use existing rights-of-way, is the best solution to moving commuters in an urban environment.  In other instances light rail is the better way to go.  Frequently, it is only feasible if it can use existing or abandoned railway lines, as was the case in Dallas, which uses former railway rights-of-way for most of its route miles.  Bus Rapid Technology (BRT) is probably a better fit where population densities are low, and distances are short to medium.  And the roadways can be restructured to accommodate dedicated bus (HOV) lanes for at least part of the route.  The key is to select the solution that best solves the problem.Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Denton, Houston, and El Paso, amongst others, are studying BRT.  Even Dallas, which is the Texas Mecca for light rail, is studying it for at least two reasons:  The cost of the Dallas light rail system has broken the piggy bank.  The Orange Line is over budget to the tune of $1 billion.  Moreover, since most people who live in the Metroplex are not close to the commuter rail line or one of the light rail lines, or are going across the system as opposed in parallel with it, they are not able to use the light rail lines.  Thus, BRT would be a better option to meet their needs.      BRT buses can cost considerably less than light rail vehicles depending on the type of vehicle chosen and its capacity.  Those planned for Austin will cost approximately $572,000 compared to more than $1 million apiece for DART's light rail cars, which were purchased in 1994, or nearly $700,000 for Houston's light rail vehicles.  The Leander to Austin commuter rail vehicles (DMU) cost an eye popping $4,500,000 for each vehicle.  BRT buses have an average life expectancy of 15 years as opposed to 30 years for light rail vehicles.  So they have to be replaced more often.  This may place the equipment costs on a par with light rail vehicles, depending on the vehicle selected.  But there could be a silver lining in this requirement.  Replacing equipment every 15 years means being able to take advantage of improved technology twice as often as light rail vehicles. BRT has one clear advantage over rail.  Flexibility!  If travel requirements shift, the buses can be re-routed over existing roadways to serve new neighborhoods and employment centers.  Rail is far less flexible.  Once the tracks are tacked down they tend to stay there.  The Leander to Austin commuter rail line is scheduled to begin service late in 2008 or early in 2009.  It is feasible only because it can run on the Austin Western, which is owned by Capital Metro.  Again, the cost has been an eye opener for the Capital Metro Broad.  Accordingly, they are looking to BRT as a better fit for most of Austin.  Sometimes communities jump on a bandwagon because everyone else is doing it.  I cannot help but believe that in some instances communities opted for light rail because others were doing it or for bragging rights without really assessing their needs and optimizing the solution.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag