Article on topic from Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-express-busjul11,0,2044717.story
"At the CTA, whose buses average a snail-like 9 m.p.h., bus rapid transit has been earmarked as the No. 1 near-term priority. Armed with a $153 million federal grant, the CTA plans to test bus-only lanes on four Chicago routes-portions of Chicago Avenue, Halsted Street, 79th Street and Jeffery Boulevard-starting mid-year 2009. The project would start with about 10 miles of bus-only lanes and eventually expand to more than 100 miles.CTA buses will also be equipped with transponders so buses can breeze through intersections on green lights. And much like Cleveland, bus stops will be spaced farther apart-about a quarter-mile-to help cut travel times.
In the Chicago area, big-ticket rail projects-ranging from the CTA's proposed Circle Line stretching around the city to Metra's suburb-to-suburb STAR Line-would cost billions of dollars to build. Currently, no funding has been identified.If Chicago's upcoming experiment pays off, it's possible that bus rapid transit networks, costing as little as one-fifth the price of heavy rail projects, would make a more viable alternative.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Which would be harder on your legs and your ladder?Carrying 10 bundles of shingles up to your roof one at a time, or carrying 10 bundles of shingles at the same time?
Which would be harder on your legs and your ladder?
Carrying 10 bundles of shingles up to your roof one at a time, or carrying 10 bundles of shingles at the same time?
I thought the issue pertained to a heavy bus vs a light automobile. Shouldn't the comparison then be you carrying 10 bundles up to the roof at the same vs having your wife or preteen child carrying them 1 at a time? Or the efficiency professor admonishing the class to be careful "I told my wife how to improve housework, now what she used to take 15 minutes to accomplish I now complete in only 10 minutes"
Eltraino4 wrote:Fed Funds are being misused for BRT projects that really road improvement projects that give no real avatages to buses to go faster then the cars like a deadicated right of way
Fed Funds are being misused for BRT projects that really road improvement projects that give no real avatages to buses to go faster then the cars like a deadicated right of way
I agree that it is possible to spend on bus improvements, only to have those advantages trickle down to automobile improvements, something that's harder to do with rail improvements. Something I've mentioned before, and I hope you'll forgive me for beating a dead horse, it is possible to design bus rapid transit as an incremental improvement that could be converted to rail rapid transit.
This is similar to one of the arguments for light rail, that properly designed light rail can be upgraded to heavy rail, therefore build now on the cheap, whether bus or rail, and allow provision for future mode change.
Certainly we've seen the reverse, downgrading rail lines to bus. One or two exceptions, for example Pittsbughs east busway which uses 2 of the former 4 Pennsylvania Railroad-Conrail tracks, most others are instances having been where the rail disappeared in favor of regular bus on our nation's highways.
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
gardendance wrote: But does 1 heavy bus with 40 passengers damage a roadway more or less than 40 cars with 1 passenger?
But does 1 heavy bus with 40 passengers damage a roadway more or less than 40 cars with 1 passenger?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
JT22CW wrote: If the automobile had such a profound influence, it would have been reflected in all forms of public transportation and not one mode (street transportation whether rail or bus).
If the automobile had such a profound influence, it would have been reflected in all forms of public transportation and not one mode (street transportation whether rail or bus).
JT22CW wrote: There was a marked difference between the streetcar usage and the usage of the buses that replaced them
I've always thought that the automobile DID have a deep influence on all forms of public transportation. I also thought that all forms of public transportation declined after World War 2, and that the automobile ascended. Maybe in recent times we've seen public transit grow, but I thought we also saw automobile mileage grow, and I'm pretty sure it's still the dominant mode, but was not dominant before WWII.
I'm not convinced that the difference between the streetcar use and the replacement bus use was just because of the bustitution. If the streetcar line had been experiencing steady or rising ridership, and management changed to buses for other reasons, and then ridership dropped, that would be one thing. Do you have figures to back that scenario? If however, as I suspect is the case, the line or system or city was experiencing declinining ridership which continued after bustitution, then I'd tend to conclude that it wasn't the change to buses that caused the decline. I do grant I have no statisitics to support my suspicion.
One example: Cleveland Shaker Heights light rail lines underwent major rebuild and new vehicle procurement in the early 1980's, yet still ridership dropped. However Cleveland's population also dropped, and by a larger percentage than the light rail ridership. This would tend to deflate the argument that the light rail improvements were wasted, since all other things being equal the light rail percentage drop should have been close to the population drop, and one could argue that the improvements prevented greater ridership drop. Also they were investment should the region's population rebound, which apparently is the case since Cleveland has built a 3rd (Lakefront) light rail line.
JT22CW wrote: And what's making you relate "automobile ownership" with "flight to suburbia" in particular? That sounds more to me like a matter related to commuter rail and interurban systems.
Shucks, that's just another of my beliefs. I'm pretty sure automobiles and the trend for big city populations to migrate to the suburbs are related. Didn't that really start to take off post WWII, and continue relatively unabated to this day, regardless of the availability of commuter rail and interurban systems? In fact I'm pretty sure the interurban era was over by the end of WWII, or at least by the 1960's, at which point the only remnants were the Chicago South Shore and South Bend and Philadelphia's Red Arrow Lines. And commuter rail lines in this country tended to dry up after WWII, only to rebound in recent decades.
gardendance wrote: 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?
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.
And what's making you relate "automobile ownership" with "flight to suburbia" in particular? That sounds more to me like a matter related to commuter rail and interurban systems.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Samantha wrote:Unlike Adelaide, where the BRT runs on a dedicated right-of-way for a portion of the routes...
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.
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.
Paul F.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.