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