News   Mar 28, 2024
 638     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 453     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 776     0 

In the US, Poor Communication and Poor Choices Plague Bus Rapid Transit

leopetr

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
403
Reaction score
82
http://thecityfix.com/in-the-u-s-poor-communication-and-poor-choices-plague-bus-rapid-transit/

In the U.S., Poor Communication and Poor Choices Plague Bus Rapid Transit
Submitted by Erik Weber on November 21, 2010

Buses-in-traffic.jpg

Many American cities’ BRT systems are destined to flounder when one of the key elements of BRT, the exclusive lane, is omitted. Image by Erik Weber.

Bus rapid transit (BRT) is still a relatively novel mode of public transit, particularly in the United States. And because the definition of BRT is flexible, this form of public transit often suffers from miscommunication that continues the cycle of misinformation that spurs poor transit investment choices and disappointment among public transit riders and personal vehicle owners.

Earlier this week, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered the opening of the new BRT lines in Atlanta, Ga. While this new public transit service is certainly a step forward for Atlanta (one of the most congested and car-dependent cities in the U.S.), the system is not terribly remarkable in the world of BRT. Instead, the media coverage in the Journal is interesting for several reasons.

As the AJC explains, the routes Q Express and Q Limited run along a main corridor on the east side of the metropolitan area and connect at their west terminus with Atlanta’s MARTA rail system. The lines feature queue-jumping lanes at two major intersections and signal priority, allowing buses to get ahead of traffic at red lights and holding green lights until they pass through an intersection. The lines have significantly fewer stops, placed at least three-quarters of a mile apart, a feature which even some light rail systems have not managed.

The article continues:

[The Q Lines are] not like the gold standard of BRT, routes like those in Ottawa and Cleveland, which have their own dedicated lanes. That’s because the gold standard costs its weight in gold to build, considering the land that has to be bought and the construction required to create an extra lane.

In that short paragraph lie both confusion in BRT communication as well as progress in how American media portray this form of transit.

First, the good: the author acknowledges that the moniker BRT includes varying level of investment. All too often, “American BRT” has failed because cities have over-hyped and under-delivered the benefits that can come from the key features of BRT. Many cities tout BRT as being rail-like yet at lower costs, but then they don’t actually invest the money necessary for the rail-like elements of BRT. Then, when the service begins, riders are often left thinking: “It’s still just a bus!”

Read more

I thought this was a good article to repost, given the popularity of queue jump lanes and pre-BRT on this board.
 
The key with BRT is knowing what "degree" of BRT you can get away with before service levels and efficiency start to decline. Queue jump lanes make sense along rarely (if ever) congested corridors, but not so much on corridors prone to gridlock. Dedicated lanes make sense on suburban arterial roads where the signaled intersections are sometimes hundreds of metres apart, but not so much on congested downtown streets where there's intersections everywhere. Dedicated ROWs make sense where there was very little land aquisition and/or demolition involved (ie running through a hydro corridor, abandoned rail corridor, or open land), but not so much when you have to clear a swath of homes in order to build it.

Every system has its advantages and its weaknesses. If you're looking for a flexible mode of transit that can use a combination of any or all of the variations listed above, BRT is probably the best option. If you have to rip out houses, cut through neighbourhoods, or need to use it as a trunk line in a large city, it's probably not the best option.

Unfortunately, improper uses of BRT (or improper labelling AS BRT) has given it a certain stigma. Calling a bus route with limited queue jump lanes and little to no signal priority BRT is like calling a streetcar that happens to have sections around intersections where it runs in its own lane LRT. It's disingenous, and it only sets the advocation for these two modes of transit further back, because the average person sits there and says "this is BRT?! it's just a bus!" or "this is LRT?! it's just a streetcar!", when in reality, it's pre-BRT or pre-LRT.

Overall though, a very well written article.
 
BRT without a dedicated lane (such as the VIVA system in York) has come to be called BRT-Lite.

A full BRT system, with dedicated lanes, can cost almost as much as an LRT system to build, the only real difference is the steel rails, however a BRT vehicle doesn't have the same capacity as an LRT vehicle so you require twice as many vehicles and twice as many drivers (at union wage rates) to reach a similar volume of passengers, which greatly increases the operating costs.
 
BRT without a dedicated lane (such as the VIVA system in York) has come to be called BRT-Lite.

A full BRT system, with dedicated lanes, can cost almost as much as an LRT system to build, the only real difference is the steel rails, however a BRT vehicle doesn't have the same capacity as an LRT vehicle so you require twice as many vehicles and twice as many drivers (at union wage rates) to reach a similar volume of passengers, which greatly increases the operating costs.

You're right, it can cost almost as much. But most of the time it ends up costing under half as much per KM as an LRT system. This savings is even more drastic when all you're doing is putting in queue jump lanes. Putting in JUST queue jump lanes doesn't really work for LRT, does it? Not much point in having LRT tracks at intersections if there's none between intersections. Even doing curbside BRT vs in-median LRT, BRT is around half as much to do.
 

Back
Top