New York MTA is developing a "Bus Rapid Transit" route. Touted as having the advantages of Light Rail without the fixed plant development costs, if successful, would this change the minds of planners to maintain what's in place, but abandon the development of future light rail lines (or convert "planned, but not built" LRT into BRT to reduce capital costs?)
Paul F.
http://www.metro-magazine.com/t_newspick.cfm?id=9070723
July 1, 2008N.Y. MTA and N.Y. DOT partner to launch BRTMTA New York City Transit is joining the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide Select Bus Service (SBS) - a new type of rapid bus operation employing advance fare payment, dedicated travel lanes and traffic signal priority.
The introduction of SBS to the Bx12 is the culmination of a three-year collaborative effort among NYC Transit, DOT, and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). NYC Transit has also worked closely with the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Transportation to develop a process to keep the bus lanes clear of traffic, insuring the free flow of buses along the Select Bus Service corridor.
Bronx bus customers along the Bx12 route will be the first to use the new service, which is designed to be faster, more reliable and more efficient than current bus operations, incorporating the efficiency and capacity of light rail transit without the limitations and construction costs of a fixed-rail system.
NYC Transit's Select Bus Service, like other Bus Rapid Transit systems around the country, uses Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and prior to boarding proof-of-payment fare collection. Traffic signal prioritization will hold or advance a green signal by several seconds to allow a bus through an intersection without stopping.
paulsafety wrote: New York MTA is developing a "Bus Rapid Transit" route. Touted as having the advantages of Light Rail without the fixed plant development costs, if successful, would this change the minds of planners to maintain what's in place, but abandon the development of future light rail lines (or convert "planned, but not built" LRT into BRT to reduce capital costs?)Paul F.http://www.metro-magazine.com/t_newspick.cfm?id=9070723July 1, 2008N.Y. MTA and N.Y. DOT partner to launch BRTMTA New York City Transit is joining the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide Select Bus Service (SBS) - a new type of rapid bus operation employing advance fare payment, dedicated travel lanes and traffic signal priority. The introduction of SBS to the Bx12 is the culmination of a three-year collaborative effort among NYC Transit, DOT, and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). NYC Transit has also worked closely with the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Transportation to develop a process to keep the bus lanes clear of traffic, insuring the free flow of buses along the Select Bus Service corridor. Bronx bus customers along the Bx12 route will be the first to use the new service, which is designed to be faster, more reliable and more efficient than current bus operations, incorporating the efficiency and capacity of light rail transit without the limitations and construction costs of a fixed-rail system. NYC Transit's Select Bus Service, like other Bus Rapid Transit systems around the country, uses Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and prior to boarding proof-of-payment fare collection. Traffic signal prioritization will hold or advance a green signal by several seconds to allow a bus through an intersection without stopping.
Running express buses over pavement is certainly much cheaper than the capital costs involved in building and maintaining electric LRT, but let's see how they'll do it --
Synchronize the traffic lights with the motion of the bus? That could happen and IIRC they've done it on a couple of routes in Los Angeles for years. But in very congested areas lights will have to be designed to hold on "yellow" when the way ahead is blocked. New York City has gotten very butch about not blocking intersections over the last 15 - 20 years and that's a good precedent to establish. Still, everything has to go just right for the bus to catch (or create) all the green lights.
But how exactly will they keep regular traffic off of bus lanes? If the bus-only lanes are walled (or perhaps better said, Jersey-barried) off, will the population tolerate the spectacle of an ambulance stuck in traffic while the Bx12 commuter bus glides by? Highway and avenue are shared concepts, after all.
But then, if we designate a special class of traffic along with city buses, we've re-created the HOV lane which is a dog in most places it's been implemented, mostly because they don't get implemented except when traffic gets so thick the HOV concept is turned to in panic. While HOV's have had some success, it's far from a proven way to reduce traffic -- basically it makes commuting even more miserable for people who have to drive alone.
And if it does involve a single (or two-way) dedicated lane, what's to happen when a bus breaks down? And if it doesn't require a barrier, what's to keep automobiles out? The bus could use a card-in-gate or even GPS type clearance if necessary, but I'm not sure motoring public in the Bronx (or in any large city) won't be tempted to break the rules. Supposing someone breaks the gates and tries to back out -- the city could put tire-poppers at the entry gate that will rupture car tires when backing out. Then it will be even more difficult to clear the jam with commuter's cars piling up behind.
Vending transit tickets from a machine, LRT system style, is a streamlined idea. But it generally hinges on whether the populace will adopt the "honor system" in pre-paying fares (with an element of fear thrown in by occasional spot-checks and big civil fines for cheaters). But what if too many spot-checkers are needed? Won't they just go back to the pay-the-driver concept, which is the very pinch-point they were trying to alleviate in the first place?
Lest I be accused of being a nay-sayer I think the situation might benefit from change lanes: on the Grand Concourse, say. A third (or fifth) lane, in the middle of the street, can show a red X when traffic is running toward, and a green symbol when it's running our way. Ugly, you say? How about the concrete spectacle of dedicated bus lanes.
LRT systems can derail, suffer blocks or black out, but such systems are nonetheless excellent ways to carry largish numbers of people over medium distances to closely-spaced or single destinations. Look at Charlotte's LYNX, which in addition to being a big hit has become "the way" to get to sports events at the civic center near downtown. People will even suffer "polite Tokyo crowding" enroute.
I'm playing to the crowd, I know, because we're here because we love trains. The Bronx bus thing just strikes me as the kind of inspired lunacy that is a boon to "consultants" and "planners" but when commitment time comes and planners and pols are forced to go on record about how much money to spend where, and on what, with simulated run-throughs and anticipated results, that such projects often become not "feasible." I don't know why NYC is so skittish about trolley tracks, especially since most LRT's don't tangle with traffic any more than necessary. Afraid of offending the ghost of Robert Moses, who ripped up trolley track with great relish sixty years ago?
Cheap, you say? Maybe, but feckless. People can fabricate an $800 Brooks Brothers suit in polyester for $120. Only it ain't a Brooks Brothers suit any more. -- a. s.
a few of the BRT items mentioned need not be unique to BRT, so why aren't they more prevalent already?
Self service or honor system proof of payment seems to be the wave of the future for new rail installations, but other than Toronto's Queen Street I don't know of any existing North American route that went from pay as you pass the operator to present proof of payment when asked. And Toronto implemented it very simply, http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/proof_of_payment.html, if you pay when you get on at the front door you get a paper transfer that looks, and is just as good as a paper transfer on any other route, except it says "POP", otherwise you can board at any open door and don't have to present anything unless the randy random roving inspector asks to see your ticket.
Boston and San Francisco should implement it, especially since they run 2 car trains and can then reassign the 2nd car's operator. Oops, did I just answer my own question, they can't do it because they can't manage to reassign that second motorman without union problems? Ironically San Jose and Sacramento, new installations flanking San Francisco, have POP fare collection and 1 man trains.
But overcoming the second operator featherbed has been done. New heavy rail systems, PATCO Lindenwold, BART, Atlanta, Baltimore, Washington DC and Miami all started with 1 man train operation, no conductor to open and close doors. Then Philadelphia managed to do so one at a time on its existing Ridge-Broad and Market-Frankford subways, and New York has at least some subway lines that are now 1 man operation. This should be an indication that union and safety issues shouldn't prevent converting an existing pay as you pass system to a self service proof of payment system.
I know of no North American bus route that has POP, does anybody know?
And what about signal interdiction? I can understand that street running with closely spaced traffic lights can wind up making it difficult, since you would need something to control a lot of signals, but it gets maddening when I see places like Baltimore and NJTransit who have gone to the expense of installing Nachod signals at street crossings that react to the traffic lights. Why didn't they spend that money to make the light rail control the traffic lights instead? What is so magical about BRT that will allow the buses to control the same type of traffic light that these rail installations can't? I remember reading that NJT's River Line construction was 1 billion dollars so it's hard to believe it was a money problem.
Is it because those lines coincide with freight railroads and railroad rules say you can't use the highway signals? But Newark city subway's grade crossing at Orange Street as long as I can remember, 1970's, was always stop the trolley let the automobiles go by then the signal changes, and that was ages before they extended the line onto the railroad. A whole bunch of grade crossings on SEPTA's rt 101-102 Media-Sharon Hill lines, Lansdowne Ave for example, were the same way. Conversely I can remember only 1 place on heavy rail, SEPTA R7 Norristown at Main St, where the train didn't control the crossing, and I think that was a safety issue where the conductor had to get off, use a key on the signal box and walk flag the train across. I haven't ridden it for many years, maybe they don't do it anymore.
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
I didn't save the article where a point was made that bus rapid transit (BRT) is being encouraged not so subtlely by the Federeal Transportation Administration. BRT is exempt from some requirements for rail projects which shortens the process by at least two years. Apparently, BRT proposals are practically guaranteed approval.
This is behind the rush for federal dollars with BRT proposals and alternatives; and I've seen it in the Chicago area. One City of Chicago proposal for an Ogden-Cermak BRT follows a bus route that was being considered for discontinuance and roughly parallels the Pink Line (Douglas L). The Cook- Du Page Corridor Study showed a grid of BRT/HOV routes across Du Page County. Interestingly, no one has worked out how BRT, mostly along highways bypassing community centers and suburban rail stations, will be coordinated.
Furthermore, BRT is seen as a back-door funding of road capacity improvements, adding lanes, associated easement and bridge reconstruction, and dislocation, with transit money when combined with HOV use.
The New York MTA is one agency that is completely prejudiced against light rail in all forms. This dates back to the LaGuardia days, when the city hurried up to abandon streetcars and any other kind of electric street transportation in favor of internal-combustion-engine buses. The only rail they deal with is commuter rail or subway. The MTA has "studies" in the works for building light rail along 42nd Street in Manhattan and possibly converting the Staten Island North Shore line to light rail (which wouldn't make sense since the North Shore Line has high platforms still and it would make the line incompatible with the South Shore route to Tottenville), but that's all they are, studies. So just because the MTA embraces BRT does not mean that all cities will suddenly favor BRT over LRT, by any stretch.
JT22CW wrote: The New York MTA is one agency that is completely prejudiced against light rail in all forms. This dates back to the LaGuardia days, when the city hurried up to abandon streetcars and any other kind of electric street transportation in favor of internal-combustion-engine buses. The only rail they deal with is commuter rail or subway. The MTA has "studies" in the works for building light rail along 42nd Street in Manhattan and possibly converting the Staten Island North Shore line to light rail (which wouldn't make sense since the North Shore Line has high platforms still and it would make the line incompatible with the South Shore route to Tottenville), but that's all they are, studies. So just because the MTA embraces BRT does not mean that all cities will suddenly favor BRT over LRT, by any stretch.
And many a city that emulated Robert Moses' anti-rail bias in the forties, fifties and sixties have had reason to regret it in the eighties, nineties, and now. (BTW Moses was very pro-expressway, but he has also done some really grand things, like have public parks and the Triborough Bridge built, so I don't want to paint him as a totally bad guy.)
JT22CW wrote: ...snip...So just because the MTA embraces BRT does not mean that all cities will suddenly favor BRT over LRT, by any stretch.
...snip...
So just because the MTA embraces BRT does not mean that all cities will suddenly favor BRT over LRT, by any stretch.
I agree, but that's not my principal concern. Could it be that planners will be attracted to better running times (versus those times for standard bus routes) and the low cost of no overhead wires, no railbed, somewhat less expensive equipment, etc.
According to FTA, there are other BRT projects being funded during 2009:
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/news/news_events_7787.html)
Flagstaff, AZ - Mountain Links BRT - $6.24 million in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase) This proposed 5.8-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) line will serve the campus of Northern Arizona University (NAU), nearby shopping centers, and downtown Flagstaff. The proposed line will combine two existing local bus routes as well as an on-campus shuttle system and would feature 1.3 miles of dedicated guideway. The Mountain Links BRT project includes 24 new stations, signal prioritization, and the purchase of eight electric-hybrid vehicles. The proposed service would carry 4,150 daily riders when it opens in 2010.
Fort Collins, CO - Mason Corridor BRT - $11.18 million in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase) The City of Fort Collins, is proposing a 5-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system within its Mason Transportation Corridor (MTC). The "Mason Express" or "MAX" right-of-way would operate at-grade in mixed traffic from the existing North Transit Center 1.2 miles to the northern edge of Colorado State University (CSU) and continue in a 3.8-mile exclusive right-of-way to the proposed South Transit Center. Service would operate at 10-minute peak frequencies. With a federal Small Starts share of $59.35 million, the $74.2 million project includes construction of the South Transit Center, traffic signal priority in general purpose lanes, a bus guideway facility, eight transit stations, eight enhanced bus stops, 250 park-and-ride spaces, and five new low-floor vehicles. It is expected to carry 3,900 daily passengers when it opens in 2010.
King County, WA - Bellevue-Redmond BRT - $10.95 million in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase) King County Metro is proposing to construct and operate a 9.25-mile long street-running bus rapid transit (BRT) line connecting downtown Bellevue, Crossroads Mall, the Overlake urban center, and downtown Redmond. The project includes 12 new stations, real-time bus arrival information, signal prioritization, and 18 low-floor hybrid vehicles. With a federal Small Starts share of $20.21 million, the $27 million line would carry 3,500 daily riders when it opens in 2011.
Livermore, CA - Livermore-Amador Route 10 BRT - $7.99 million in FY 2009 (Medium-High Rating, Project Development Phase) The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) is proposing to construct and operate a 12.0-mile arterial and highway-running bus rapid transit (BRT) line serving the communities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin. With a $10.93 federal Small Starts share, the $21.66 million Livermore-Amador Route 10 BRT project includes 34 new stations, signal prioritization, and the purchase of 14 electric-hybrid vehicles. The proposed service is expected to carry 4,500 daily riders when it opens later this year.
Los Angeles - Wilshire Boulevard Bus-Only Lane - $10.95 million in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), in coordination with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), is proposing to implement a dedicated bus lane along portions of a 12.5-mile stretch of Wilshire Boulevard between downtown Los Angeles and the City of Santa Monica. Wilshire Boulevard is the site of LACMTA's first Metro Rapid "arterial" bus rapid transit (BRT) line, which opened for service in June 2000. The proposed Wilshire Boulevard Bus-Only Lane project features 9.6 miles of curb lanes converted into an exclusive facility during peak-period operations. The lanes will be differentiated in their appearance with pavement markings and line delineators, and traffic restrictions will be enforced by the Los Angeles Police Department. With a federal Small Starts share of $23.32 million, the $31.51 million project is expected to carry 40,000 daily riders when it begins service in 2011.
San Diego - Mid-City Rapid - $21.65 million in FY 2009 (Medium-High Rating, Project Development Phase)This proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) line, nearly 10 miles in length, would connect downtown San Diego and San Diego State University (SDSU). The BRT alignment would run primarily along three of the region's densest urban travel corridors: Broadway in downtown; Park Boulevard through North Park and Hillcrest; and El Cajon Boulevard, running east-west through several of San Diego's older and densely populated "Mid-City" neighborhoods. With a $21.65 million federal Small Starts share, the $43.3 million project includes 11 enhanced bus shelters in each direction with real-time passenger information systems; traffic signal priority systems throughout the corridor; and 15 low-floor advanced technology buses that will have a distinct brand to distinguish the BRT from regular local bus service in the corridor. Mid-City Rapid service will carry 15,000 daily riders when in opens in 2010.
EXISTING SMALL STARTS PROJECTS (4)FTA is recommending continued investment in four Small Starts projects initiated in FY 2008:
Kansas City, MO - Troost Corridor BRT - $125,200 in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase) The nine-mile BRT line along Troost Avenue will terminate in downtown Kansas City. The proposed line, which will add 25 new stations and 15 new low-floor buses, will run north and south, parallel and one mile west of the existing MAX BRT. Existing transit service on Troost Avenue carries approximately 7,800 passengers each weekday, which is the highest ridership of any corridor in the region. With a federal Small Starts share of $24.58 million, the $30.7 million project is expected to attract 1,200 new daily riders, and accommodate a total of 9,000 boardings each weekday when it is complete in 2010.
King County, WA - Pacific Highway South BRT - $281,520 in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase)The 10.9-mile BRT route south of Seattle runs roughly parallel and to the east of Interstate 5 from the City of Tukwila south past Seattle-Tacoma Airport to the City of Federal Way. With a federal Small Starts share of $14 million, the project is expected to cost $25 million, and will carry an anticipated 8,200 passengers daily by the year 2015.
Los Angeles - Metro Rapid Bus System Gap Closure - $332,620 in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase)The proposed eight Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines that make up the Los Angeles Gap Closure project would connect existing Metro Rapid Bus routes, effectively completing a regional arterial BRT network. The proposed lines, which will utilize existing buses, have been identified for their potential to reduce travel time throughout the Metro Rapid Bus system. With a federal Small Starts share of $16.68 million, the $25.66 million project will add 247 new stations along 120 miles of new bus routes. When the project is complete later this year, it is expected to attract 40,000 new daily riders, and accommodate a total of 123,100 boardings each weekday.
Springfield, OR - Pioneer Parkway EmX BRT - $296,000 in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase)The proposed 7.8-mile extension of the Franklin Corridor BRT extends service from the eastern terminus of the Franklin Corridor route north along the Pioneer Parkway to existing and new residential and employment areas in Springfield. With a federal Small Starts share of $29.59 million, the $37 million project is expected to carry 3,700 passengers daily when it opens in 2010.
Could it be that planners will be attracted to better running times (versus those times for standard bus routes) and the low cost of no overhead wires, no railbed, somewhat less expensive equipment, etc.
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.
beaulieu wrote: In the Twin Cities Metro Transit is considering large fare incrueases for the bus routes because the sharp rise in diesel prices has busted their budget, on the other hand the increase in electricity costs for the LRT is more modest.
Is anyone considering (articulated) trolleycoach for the future, other than the handful of cities that still have some? I've heard that trolleycoaches are an efficient and energy-efficient way to move medium-sized crowds short- to medium distances. If more people want to go farther, then LRT is the way to go. To handle a flood of people long metro distances (10+ miles or so), commuter rail is the best. IIRC.
The Hiawatha corridor LRV's are articulated in pairs. The Twin Cities has also had articulated buses running on the streets(not sure if they still do...).
The 'BRT' idea will find favor for low initial cost & flexible routing options. The long term operating costs(fuel/bus replacement) & getting stuck in traffic(even with 'priority signal routing') are items that must be weighed by each community. All of these ideas have merit, but it is hard to consider any of these as the 'one size fits all' solution.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Al:
Charlotte runs trolley's in the southend and city center in between the light rail trains.
They don't run during rush hour because the light rail trains are too often.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
BRT has one clear advantage over rail. Flexibility
Also, BRT special routes are just as fixed as rail. Not to mention more expensive to maintain than rail.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Al:Charlotte runs trolley's in the southend and city center in between the light rail trains.They don't run during rush hour because the light rail trains are too often.
The best of both worlds! Great!
I don't know how long it took CATS to plan, fund and build its system, so I have to ask: did the introduction of antique trolleys help influence the local gov't that they should give LYNX a go?
- a.s.
Those trolleys are not antique. They are only a couple of years old.
The system did start when a private non profit group purchased and restored a historically significant antique trolley which they ran on a short section of abandoned N&S right of way, but those green and yellow trollies in the picture were purchased new by CATS.
The integrated transit system is under construction and is not planned to be completed until 2030. It is funded with a dedicated 1/2 % sales tax. So far they have purchased 175 new buses and 16 light rail trainsets. The first light rail line has been up and running since November and is been averaging many more rides per day than even the most optimistic estimates. They have recently ordered 4 more trainsets because of the load. The second light rail line is in the engineering stages at this time. The third line, which will be commuter rail, is still in planning. The busways for the 4th line are under construction as part of a road widening and upgrade project, but the people in the area to be served by that BRT line are still doing everything possible to change it to light rail. There is also a trolley line planned through city center.
The success in Charlotte has just resulted in the state government passing a new law allowing several other cities to use the local sales tax model to begin similar projects.
This one is the antique:
It looked like this before they restored it...
JT22CW wrote: BRT has one clear advantage over rail. FlexibilityNo, that's not an advantage, nor is it even a characteristic. Bus routes tend to not change very frequently, especially at their cores. Things get very expensive relating to startup costs to create limited-service alternate routes (created via pandering, to boot) that end up fizzling out due to lack of demand or inability to recoup costs to a certain requirement. Furthermore, bus routes that change too frequently tend to drive away passengers due to the confusion it creates.Also, BRT special routes are just as fixed as rail. Not to mention more expensive to maintain than rail.
Please show us the numbers for these assertions. The DOT does not agree with you. It is one of the reasons why they are pushing BRT in a number of environments.
In Dallas and Fort Worth the light rail and commuter rail lines converge downtown. That's because they were designed as a hub and spoke systems when almost everyone worked downtown. Many of the bus routes also converge downtown. Routes through downtown tend to stay the same, but they have changed over the years.
Many of the newer bus routes run across town, i.e. from one outlying employment center to another, in response to the changing employmnet centers in the Metroplex. It was easy to switch the buses to run across town as the new centers unfolded.
The rail lines cannot be moved although they can be abandoned. New ones could be built, but as I have pointed out in previous posts, but the cost is prohibitive. More than 80 per cent of the Metroplex light rail and commuter rail systems run on former railway lines. That is the only way the communities could have afforded them. Funding new rail lines, of whatever stripe, to run across the Metroplex, is simply out of the question. Its too costly!
The HOV lanes in Dallas, which carry nearly twice the number of passengers as the light rail lines, are used by buses and other vehicles. If the buses are switched to other routes, the HOV lanes would still be usable by other vehicles. The same thing applies to the dedicated bus lanes in downtown Dallas and Fort Worth.
Several Texas cities that were enthusiastic about light rail have taken a second look at it because of the cost. Just today (July 28, 2008) Capital Metro announced a plan to implement BRT in Austin. One reason is the cost of the proposed light rail line from the airport to downtown Austin and the University of Texas. Having spent all of its extra resources on the Leander to Austin commuter rail line, which is yet to begin service, finding the money for a light rail system will be difficult.
The proponents of building a light rail system in Austin released recently their preliminary cost estimates. The estimated price tag for the light rail line, which would run from the airport to downtown Austin and the University of Texas, for a distance of 15.3 miles, would be $600 million. That works out to approximately $39 million per mile.
Coincidentally, Capital Metro released its estimate of the cost of the first phase of the BRT plan for Austin. The price tag for the two starter routes, which would run from south Austin to North Austin, a combined distance of 57 miles, would be $40 million or approximately $702 thousand per mile.
I wonder how many of the people who have stated a preference for light rail over BRT understand the cost and funding implications or who will pick up the tab.
Samantha wrote:I wonder how many of the people who have stated a preference for light rail over BRT understand the cost and funding implications or who will pick up the tab.
marknewton wrote: Samantha wrote: I wonder how many of the people who have stated a preference for light rail over BRT understand the cost and funding implications or who will pick up the tab.And I wonder how many people who are proponents of BRT understand that the maintenance of a bus road is four times more expensive than a tram track?Mark.
Samantha wrote: I wonder how many of the people who have stated a preference for light rail over BRT understand the cost and funding implications or who will pick up the tab.
Unlike Adelaide, where the BRT runs on a dedicated right-of-way for a portion of the routes, most BRT in the United States runs or will run in dedicated lanes on existing roadways, as is the case in Dallas. Except in specific locations, i.e. downtown Austin, BRT will run on streets that are used by other vehicles.
BRT in Austin is expected to reduce travel times by approximately 20 per cent over existing bus route times. The primary tool for doing so will be the ability of the driver to control the traffic signals, thereby reducing the amount of time waiting for a signal to change. Another tool will be limited stops at locations that will look a lot like a light rail stop. And the third tool will be a pre-paid fare system so that the driver does not have to wait for the passengers to deposit their fare.
Given the numbers that I showed for the implementation of light rail in Austin vs the implementation of BRT, the future value of the difference could cover a lot of maintenance, even if your assertion is true. Moreover, the investment in BRT would buy 57 miles of route as opposed to 15.3 miles for the light rail.
I have provided verifiable number regarding the cost to construct light rail vs. the cost to implement BRT in Austin. I would like to see some verifiable numbers from the people who claim that the cost of maintaining a bus lane in the U.S. is four times the cost of maintaining a tram line.
I would like to see some verifiable numbers from the people who claim that the cost of maintaining a bus lane in the U.S. is four times the cost of maintaining a tram line.
It could be that a patch of concrete has higher snow removal expense than a railroad roadbed.
On the other hand, a street-running portion of a light rail line or a streetcar line is the worst of both worlds from the standpoint of road/guideway maintenance. When you see these movie clips of Bonfire of the Vanities (the burning of books deemed to be morally bad) of destruction of streetcars by setting fire to them when they were replaced with buses, the implication is that there was this Vast Concrete and Diesel Bus Conspiracy. Maybe the "town fathers" publically torched streetcars in an expression of "good riddance" of having to maintain streets with rails in them.
If there is some advantage of a railroad roadbed over a concrete slab for dedicated right-of-way segments of a route, perhaps some bimodal system discussed on another thread would be in order.
It seems that there are some so dedicated to steel-on-steel that the Alweg Monorail along with the Paris and Montreal subway are suspect. Perhaps BART is also suspect because it is of a non-standard broad gauage.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
It's been a while since I've done my broken record, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. My opinion is that anything that gets people out of their automobiles will help rail transit.
Bus Rapid Transit does not mean doom for rail.
National City Lines was not the cause of streetcar abandonments, although its owners GM, Esso, etc... may have been a cause because they fed peoples' auto addiction.
gardendance wrote: It's been a while since I've done my broken record, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. My opinion is that anything that gets people out of their automobiles will help rail transit.Bus Rapid Transit does not mean doom for rail.National City Lines was not the cause of streetcar abandonments, although its owners GM, Esso, etc... may have been a cause because they fed peoples' auto addiction.
I agree, but my initial post questions not the doom of existing rail, but a potential for planners to migrate away from any new rail projects (fresh construction, not extentions) in favor of BRT. I already see a movement within the FTA towards funding many more BRT projects than rail projects.
As a taxpayer, maybe this isn't such a bad deal.
LRT/LRV in a dedicated right of way is far speedier for the passenger than sitting in a car or vanpool (in most cases), but a bus on either a dedicated ROW or a dedicated lane with traffic light priority isn't all that far behind (in theory, anyway). Getting the ROW set aside for a new dedicated ROW is tough in either case, but the flexibility of building a "bus corridor" that opens up into a network of routes that fan out to various outlying destinations might help speed longer distance commuters into the city (ie. the dedicated XBL of the Lincoln Tunnel)
While planners recognize that buses have a (generally) shorter service life, this spreads the cost out over time and makes the intial price tag lower (the planner may have moved on to greener pastures by the time the fleet needs to be replaced so politically, it's not his or her problem to deal with)
However, as a traffic safety person, I hate to see a pair of travel lanes sit unused except for the occasional express bus. Opening that lane to all traffic really doesn't help congestion that much, but maybe the people sitting in their guzzler cars will see the bus zip by and figure that's a better way to commute.
Personally, I didn't give up a car for the bus until I had to (the car died and couldn't afford a new, second car in the family). Once I realized that the commuter bus wasn't a bad switch at all, I didn't want to return to the car (this was in Northern California, and now my commute is under five miles home to office in Northern NJ) If I was going into NYC, I would definately use bus, subway or train/ferry. Of course, not everyone looks at their commute this way.....
Thanks to everyone who's posted...I enjoy seeing the various perspectives, and sorry for rambling a bit here.
Samantha wrote:Unlike Adelaide, where the BRT runs on a dedicated right-of-way for a portion of the routes...
Unlike Adelaide, where the BRT runs on a dedicated right-of-way for a portion of the routes...
Given the numbers that I showed for the implementation of light rail in Austin vs the implementation of BRT, the future value of the difference could cover a lot of maintenance, even if your assertion is true.
Tracks in streets, rail lanes shared as auto and general traffic lanes, are not "the worst of all worlds" and do not pose difficult maintenance problems with modern technology. The "downtowns" of plenty of European cities, plus Toronto in North America, prove otherwise. The old lumbering two-motored deck-roof (usually) heavyweight slow accelerating and impossible to stop quickly in wet weather streetcar was a pain in the neck for automobile drivers, but lightweight cars with magnetic track brakes and then the PCC solved that problem pretty neatly. There probably is no advantage either way in speed between a modern bus and a modern streetcar running in mixed traffic in city streets. Ditto electric buses or trackless trolleys. But isn't it interesting that the Ballard route in Seattle had a terrific jump in patronage just because electric buses, trackless trolleys, replaced diesels on the route? So there is something about the smoothness and quietness of electricity that attracks riders. In case after case when relatively modern streetcars were pulled of the streets and replaced by buses, patronage fell, and I saw this happen with the Broadway-42nd Street line in Manhattan at age 14 at the end of 1946.
In terms of costs, light rail, particularly light rail in streets or on its own surface or elevated right-of-way, cost way way more than bus lanes. But as can be verified by pulling up the website of the American Public Transit Association, operating costs per passenger mile are considerably lower, averaged across all operators, for light rail than for buses, although there are exceptions. Heavy rail rapid transit has the least cost, and commuter rail varies too much from case to case to make a really meaningful average. Its spread goes all the way from as efficient as heavy rail rapid transit to less efficient than bus.
One case where construction costs for light rail are less than for bus rapid transit is tunnels or subways. Buses require a bit more clearance or a more expensive guidance system and if not electric require more ventilation.
daveklepper wrote: In case after case when relatively modern streetcars were pulled of the streets and replaced by buses, patronage fell, and I saw this happen with the Broadway-42nd Street line in Manhattan at age 14 at the end of 1946.
Are you making a causality mistake? Are you sure that the patronage drop was a result of the bustitution, or was it due to postwar automobile ownership increase and flight to suburbia? What ridership changes did other lines in New York City and the nation experience? What were the population and employment changes at the time?
marknewton wrote: Samantha wrote: Unlike Adelaide, where the BRT runs on a dedicated right-of-way for a portion of the routes...Routes? What routes? There is one O-bahn route, singular, in Adelaide. And it was nothing more than a politically-motivated quick fix. It has never been extended, whereas the Glenelg tramway has been, and will be further extended, as well as getting new rollingstock. Electrification of the Adelaide suburban railway network has also been approved. Given the numbers that I showed for the implementation of light rail in Austin vs the implementation of BRT, the future value of the difference could cover a lot of maintenance, even if your assertion is true.Not my assertion, it was the finding of a series of studies carried out by the Service des ponts et chaussées some years back, comparing tramways to BRT, of which France has both.http://lannuaire.service-public.fr/services_nationaux/conseil,-comite,-commission-organisme-consultatif_171069.html I would like to see some verifiable numbers from the people who claim that the cost of maintaining a bus lane in the U.S. is four times the cost of maintaining a tram line. http://www.lcpc.fr/en/sources/blpc/index.phpMark.
Samantha wrote: Unlike Adelaide, where the BRT runs on a dedicated right-of-way for a portion of the routes...
Multiple bus routes use the O-bahn or Adelaide Rapid Bus right-of-way to get from the central business district to outlying areas. They enter it just outside of the central business district. At points along the right-of-way it expands into a station plaza. Some of the buses leave the O-bahn at the plaza and run routes through neighborhoods. Others continue on to the next plaza, where they repeat the process, while others run to the end of the O-ban, where they too repeat the process.
One clear advantage of the system is that it allows people to stay on the same vehicle, whereas in the case of rail, they must transfer to another vehicle. Interestingly, in Dallas, with the implementation of the light rail system, some bus riders had their commute time increased because of the need to transfer from the bus to the light rail train.
Light rail and commuter rail makes sense if it can be built on existing rights-of-way or represents an upgrade of existing rail lines, i.e. the Glenelg tramway and electrification of the Adelaide suburban railway. Accordingly, it would make no sense to extend the O-bahn to duplicate the Glenelg tramway or one of the suburban rail lines.
I lived in Melbourne for nearly five years and traveled to Adelaide every month. I have more than a tourist's perspective of the public transport systems in Adelaide. I rode a variety of bus routes on the O-bahn. I also rode every commuter line. And of course I would not have missed the Glenelg tram, since it stops close to the Hilton Hotel, where I stayed when I was in Adelaide. I also rode the Overland to and from Melbourne on four occasions, as well as the Indian Pacific to and from Sydney twice.
Nothing in the references that you listed speaks to the cost of maintaining the roadways in the U.S. that hoist RBT. I did not say that you made the assertion; I referenced the fact that other people have made it. Frankly, I don't believe it.
In most areas where RBT has been implemented, at least in the U.S., or where it is envisioned, the buses share the roadway with a variety of vehicles. Most of the dedicated lanes are not walled off or wholly dedicated to RBT. They are usually the right hand lane through congested areas, i.e. the central business district, or they are HOV lanes, as is the case in Dallas.
Buses, because they are heavier, cause more damage to roadways than cars, but less damage then heavy trucks. Thus, when it comes time to repair the roadways, it would be fair to say that the portion of the cost attributable to the bus is greater than that attributable to cars, although less than that attributable to trucks, but that does not make the case for saying that the cost of maintaining the roadway over which RBT operates is four times greater than the cost of maintaining a light rail or commuter rail line.
But does 1 heavy bus with 40 passengers damage a roadway more or less than 40 cars with 1 passenger?
but what would be your reason for building it on like for like basis? If you never intend to run rail then you have no need to build overpasses stong enough to handle rail vehicles which would probably be heavier than buses.
daveklepper mentioned that tunnels probably are more expensive for buses because of clearance or guidance issues. That should also apply to underpasses, so maybe if you've got a mix of under and overpasses then whatever you saved on building cheap overpasses you'd lose because the bus needs wider underpasses than rail.
Of course you could dispense with grade separated road crossings, but then you're losing some of the rapid aspects of the RT system.
On the other hand you may be stymied if one day you want to convert to rail and all of your overpasses are built to bus standards.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.