leopetr
Active Member
http://thecityfix.com/in-the-u-s-poor-communication-and-poor-choices-plague-bus-rapid-transit/
I thought this was a good article to repost, given the popularity of queue jump lanes and pre-BRT on this board.
In the U.S., Poor Communication and Poor Choices Plague Bus Rapid Transit
Submitted by Erik Weber on November 21, 2010
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.