Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Bus Rapid Transit

[M II A II R II K]

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Bus Rapid Transit


Apr 02, 2012

By Emily Badger

Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/how-build-better-brt-system/1647/

Global BRT Website: http://brtdata.org/


.....

Since 2008, Phoenix, Kansas City, New York, and Cleveland have all implemented BRT systems. Chicago is mulling one now. Worldwide, the concept is taking off, too. 134 cities – half of them in Latin America – now have such corridors, spanning more than 3,000 kilometers of urban bus routes from Zaozhuang, China to Guadalajara, Mexico. All of them, though, are trying slightly different riffs on the idea. BRT implies some kind of hybrid bus-train service, but there’s no single blueprint for how to make one work. Buses move faster when riders pay their fare curbside instead of making change on-board (with the driver, of all people!). They move faster when they’re given dedicated lanes on a busy street. And they really move faster when they have the ability to communicate with approaching intersections.

- Researchers and transit advocates would love to know which types of BRT systems move the most people, which ones operate with the best fuel efficiency, which ones actually come the closest to rail-like speed. As it turns out, the answer to this last question is Adelaide, Australia, where the BRT system moves on average at 80 kilometers an hour (including dwell time in stations). This number comes out of a new web database EMBARQ is unveiling today, alongside the International Energy Agency and the Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence. The site has information from all 134 international cities, on 95 individual metrics ranging from the length of BRT corridors to the mode of buses used on them, and even the fuel type in their gas tanks. “The objective of the data set isn’t to say that BRT is a superior mode to other public transit modes,†Carrigan says. “But we do think that the 134 cities in the data set have found a reason for BRT in their particular city, and I think some of the data can help people thinking about implementing a BRT to understand what role it could play in the public transit services in that particular city.â€

.....

 

[ssiguy2]

The website comes up but doesn't work.
BRT doesn't get the respect it justly deserves mainly due to the very powerful LRT/ train manufacturers lobby. Also politicians, most of whom know next to nothing about transit, would rather cut the ribbon on an LRT line than a BRT even if BRT would have been a better choice.
As much as Miller will have wet dreams of the first TC line, the people in the northern areas of the city would get far superior, more reliable, and faster service by a Finch Hydro corridor BRT.
BTW.............Winnipeg is opening it's first leg of BRT this week. Its just 3.6 km but is the start of a larger system and is a top notch system..........POP, large enclosed heated stations, level boardings, complete exclusive busways with tunnels/bridges, TOD friendly, active transportation.............this is the real deal a la Ottawa Transitway.
Congrats to The Peg!

 

[BMO]

here's a link to that winnipeg BRT system info page.

quite impressed with that osborne station that will be completely covered and heated. seems interesting!

 

[doady]

And of course here in the GTA we are also getting true BRT with the Mississauga Transitway and 407 Transitway. The Mississauga Transitway is already under construction and will be open in 2013 if I'm not mistaken. These transitways will be a huge improvement for regional transit services, but the improvement for local transit will probably be minimal. And unfortunately for the Mississauga Transitway, the City of Toronto seems determined on building surface LRT at-grade down the middle of the street isntead of utilizing corridors like Richview. Toronto could build BRT in the Finch hydro corridor but I don't see that being a benefit to many riders, either local or regional.

 

[Electrify]

The website comes up but doesn't work.
BRT doesn't get the respect it justly deserves mainly due to the very powerful LRT/ train manufacturers lobby. Also politicians, most of whom know next to nothing about transit, would rather cut the ribbon on an LRT line than a BRT even if BRT would have been a better choice.
As much as Miller will have wet dreams of the first TC line, the people in the northern areas of the city would get far superior, more reliable, and faster service by a Finch Hydro corridor BRT.
BTW.............Winnipeg is opening it's first leg of BRT this week. Its just 3.6 km but is the start of a larger system and is a top notch system..........POP, large enclosed heated stations, level boardings, complete exclusive busways with tunnels/bridges, TOD friendly, active transportation.............this is the real deal a la Ottawa Transitway.
Congrats to The Peg!

While I won't go as far as claiming there is a conspiracy among rail lobbyists (full disclosure: I do own some shares in Bombardier and GE, but also some in New Flyer), I do think for what Transit City is focused on accomplishing, which is a higher order local service over an extended route distance, some kind of BRT-lite would have been more than sufficient. In fact, the TTC should look at some of these amenities for its limited stop "express" branches. Off board payment, cue jump lanes, wider stop spacing while still respecting local needs, etc.

 

[ssiguy2]

Every technology has it's place.
My point was that often cities go ahead with LRT for no other reason that "everyone else has one" without examining the needs, cost, affordability, net ridership increase etc. In other words, epsecially in the US, LRT seems to be the flavour of the month. Many large US cities have built large LRT systems which get horrid ridership for the money invested and have resulted in little net gain in ridership. Many US cities have built elaborate systems but by putting so much into one or two lines, they have bankrupted the rest of the system.
BRT doesn't get the respect it deserves and is often dismissed by local politicians for the sole reason that it doesn't make for as pretty ribbon cutting.

 

[mpd618]

BRT doesn't get respect because it's often not an alternative presented in good faith. It's presented in lieu of the do-nothing option and, if chosen, gets watered down. There's no real standard for what BRT is, which means there's no standard to hold it to. That's the case in most of North America, anyway.

There's also the point lost on many who look to the successful BRT systems of South America and China, which is that labour costs are much lower there.

It definitely does depend on the corridor, and what role it serves in the city's current or planned travel patterns. Funneling routes into a busway makes sense if you have or want the one-seat ride pattern from residential subdivisions to a downtown. If it's a single corridor that you want to build more city around, a busway makes relatively less sense.

 

[andrewpmk]

BRT would be great for the large number of TTC routes that were never planned to get Transit City LRT. Obvious examples would be Lawrence East/West, Malton, Wilson, York Mills, Finch East, Steeles East/West, Victoria Park, Warden, McCowan North, Dufferin, Kipling. These packed bus routes need immediate improvements now.

BRT will hardly be a long term solution though. Clearly we need a bigger subway system with BRT acting as the feeder to the subway system.

Good point about the large number of unsuccessful LRT systems in the US. There are a lot of severely underused LRT systems like San Jose which is much slower than driving, does not connect to many of the area's largest employers and where the connecting bus service is lousy.

 

[Justin10000]

Checked out the site. Brampton and York, and Halifax's system is featured as BRT. And that is why BRT will never get the respect proponents feel it deserves. This organization that is presenting it's self as a BRT promoter is validating a limited stop service with amenities that are common in many European cities as BRT.

I remember years ago, the George Bush government was heavily promoting BRT. One system that was promoted as BRT test case was in Honolulu. It was called TheTransit Route "E" This project was supposed to be a BRT "Showcase"(Feds language) that would promote the advantages of BRT over Rail. In the end, the "BRT" project that was implemented was a line with different coloured buses, poor frequency, and little amenenties. It was heavily promoted as BRT, but was later discontinued due to poor ridership.
This is the problem BRT proponents face. Overselling the product and trying to make it as cheap as possible. A true BRT system can cost as much as rail, which is not a bad thing.

 

[BurlOak]

The same way that Spadina and St. Clair were promoted as LRT?

 

[Justin10000]

Never knew the TTC was a world-wide organization. And the TTC never promoted St. Clair as LRT.

 

[gweed123]

While I won't go as far as claiming there is a conspiracy among rail lobbyists (full disclosure: I do own some shares in Bombardier and GE, but also some in New Flyer), I do think for what Transit City is focused on accomplishing, which is a higher order local service over an extended route distance, some kind of BRT-lite would have been more than sufficient. In fact, the TTC should look at some of these amenities for its limited stop "express" branches. Off board payment, cue jump lanes, wider stop spacing while still respecting local needs, etc.

Especially considering the fact that many of the projected riderships on a lot of the Transit City routes were certainly in the low end of the LRT ridership scale, and were perfectly within the BRT scale (Sheppard East, Jane, and Scarborough-Malvern come to mind).

BRT would be great for the large number of TTC routes that were never planned to get Transit City LRT. Obvious examples would be Lawrence East/West, Malton, Wilson, York Mills, Finch East, Steeles East/West, Victoria Park, Warden, McCowan North, Dufferin, Kipling. These packed bus routes need immediate improvements now.

BRT will hardly be a long term solution though. Clearly we need a bigger subway system with BRT acting as the feeder to the subway system.

Good point about the large number of unsuccessful LRT systems in the US. There are a lot of severely underused LRT systems like San Jose which is much slower than driving, does not connect to many of the area's largest employers and where the connecting bus service is lousy.

Agreed completely. Even not true BRT, just queue jump lanes and the occasional dedicated lane on a lot of those corridors would do wonders for the efficiency of the service.

And yes, the more the primary network is expanded (subway AND GO), the more the role of these routes will shift from being long haul to being high frequency, low to medium capacity feeder routes. One of the less obvious advantages to this approach is a greater turnover on buses compared to now. Instead of connecting to a single subway station like most routes do now, they would pass 3 or 4 rapid transit stations, with the potential for 3 or 4 complete turnovers instead of just one or two. This means an increased profitability of the route, not to mention fewer buses that are running 50% of the route completely full.

 

[BurlOak]

Never knew the TTC was a world-wide organization. And the TTC never promoted St. Clair as LRT.

Torontonian get their perception of LRT from what TTC has told them in the past is LRT - not what is done in Europe and Asia.

On the "Transit City Plan Debate thread - post #7865 (http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/5714-Transit-City-Plan-Debate/page525), I found one reference to St. Clair LRT on the TTC website. I do not recall how it was promoted, but you would think they would have been extra cautious not to call it an LRT.

 

[Justin10000]

Torontonian get their perception of LRT from what TTC has told them in the past is LRT - not what is done in Europe and Asia.

And that perception is being corrected, and Torontonians have a better understanding of LRT. BRT proponents are making no such effort. Hell, YRT calls VIVA "rapid transit"

On the "Transit City Plan Debate thread - post #7865 (http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/5714-Transit-City-Plan-Debate/page525), I found one reference to St. Clair LRT on the TTC website. I do not recall how it was promoted, but you would think they would have been extra cautious not to call it an LRT.

YOu found a reference on a TTC public art page. Really. That's not really terrible.

 

[ssiguy2]

BRT can make excellent use of Hydro corridors and corrifors along freeways much more affordably than other systems and can be damn fast as, contrary to what Miller thinks, not everyone takes transit to enjoy the view.
The newly opened 3.6 km Winnipeg BRT Busway has 3 stations and the speed limit along the route for the busses is 80km/hr. That kind os speed will tempt anyone out of their cars.
The Sheppard & Finch TC routes will greatly improve the comfort and reliability along those corridors but won't get the patrons to where they want to go much faster than they do now.