Why More U.S. Cities Need to Embrace Bus-Rapid Transit
from the Atlantic Cities:
Why More U.S. Cities Need to Embrace Bus-Rapid Transit
YONAH FREEMARKFEB 25, 2014
American cities welcomed the automobile in the 20th century by yielding much of their street space to cars. The damage done by this approach can be measured in rising pedestrian deaths or declining walking rates, but a less obviously legacy is the reluctance cities still show toward reshaping their streets — a resistance that's playing out full-bore in local debates over so-called bus-rapid transit lines. It's a feud that calls into question the street's very role in the modern city: Is it to convey automobiles, or is to provide mobility for everyone?
Bus-Rapid Transit lines, or BRT, are designed to address a flaw in most public bus systems: they're slowed down by the automobile traffic that surrounds them. Stuck in lanes shared with cars, caught up at frequent traffic lights, and often stopping every block, buses too often fail to attract riders who have an alternative. Slow speeds, infrequent arrival, and a generally low service level too often make buses less appealing than rail.
The following chart, compiled with data from the American Public Transportation Association, shows that of ten U.S. cities that had rail systems in 2001 that have not since been significantly expanded, only one (Buffalo) had faster growth in ridership on its buses than its rail lines:
What BRT attempts to do is ape the benefits of rail service at a much lower cost, and in city after city, BRT services have indeed increased ridership. But effective BRT requires giving buses some street space previously allocated to cars, so they can operate in their own exclusive lanes, and taking lanes from cars has proven politically toxic. Even in otherwise progressive places like Berkeley and New York, BRT projects have been subject to incredibly contentious public meetings and hostile press. Drivers have complained about the prospect of increasing congestion and business owners have moaned about lost sales. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/02/why-more-us-cities-need-embrace-bus-rapid-transit/8480/
= new reply since forum marked as read
In many cities, to bypass the main log jams of most highways, require you to go underground. In this regard electric buses make more sense, for the simple reason with electric drive, you only have to worry about getting oxygen to the passengers and removing carbon dioxide from the passengers. That is a lot easier then handling the carbon monoxide from the diesel exhaust (the best way us to force air INTO the underground system).
Once you decide to tunnel under such log jams and use electric trolley buses, you have to address another issue, do you want the "bus" to go in and out of conventional traffic or go on its own right of way? If it is decided to go with its own rights of way, then the fact that Light Rail vehicles can haul more people comes into play. Thus once you start to remove the bus from conventional traffic, the LRV starts to look better and better.
In the areas where old streetcars survived till replaced by LRVs, they tended to be on their own right of way. Being railed vehicle, their rear wheels must follow the rails, something buses rear wheels do NOT do. Thus Rail vehicles can operate in tighter locations for they can come within a 1/2 inch of an obstruction, and never hit it, especially if it is a Permanent obstruction. This also permit double, triple or longer cars, all operated by one driver (or if automated no driver). Given that something like 80% of mass transit cost are pay to drivers, these LRVs start to look better and better for they become more and more cost efficient.
BRT works in Brazil, where it operates like a LRV system on its own right of way (and even in Brazil they are plans to replace their BRT with LRV sometime in the future, when the demand for seats exceeds the present day capacity).
For example, Wikipedia, reports that BRT peaks at 12,000 passengers per hour per day, while Light Rail can go as high as 19,000 passengers per hour per day (Wikipedia then states that if it is possible to by pass stations, BRT can go as high as 35,000 passengers per hour per day. This ignores what would be the number for LRVs if they had the option to by pass stations, the cost to permit bypassing a stations is about the same for both types of transportation, the cost of having two lanes at stations. Such bypassing of Rail stations was something done on the Laurel Line Streetcar line in 1903 and was used till it converted to diesel in 1952)
More on the Laurel Line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lackawanna_and_Wyoming_Valley_Railroad
Thus BRT has no real advantage from Light rail in terms of service. In terms of costs BRT had the advantage of being cheap up front, but a higher lifetime cost. A light rail vehicle can last 30 years but cost $4 million dollars each. Buses can cost $400,000 but last no longer then 15 years. Thus one LRV can haul as many as six buses over its life time. Thus we are looking at $4 million vs 2.4 Million. If you add in the difference is fuel, Electric drive vs Diesel, the cost is about $1 of electric drive for the same mileage as $2.50 foe diesel (150% price of diesel over electric drive).
Report on BRT in Canada
http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/brt_report.pdf
EPA electric drive comparision, EPR does list the Chevy Volt for both electric and gasoline driven conditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent#Petroleum-equivalency_factor_.28PEF.29_.E2.80.94_a_CAFE_metric
Operating cost for a bus is around $350,000 each:
http://www.proterra.com/images/WVU_FinalReport.pdf
LRVs are much cheaper, electric drive is cheaper and being electric less maintenance then a diesel engine.
The big savings is in cost of drivers, 80% of the cost of operating most mass transit systems. One LRV replacing 3 buses, means the LRV had 1/3 of the operating costs of the three buses (In this comparison, we can ignore that the three buses will be replaced by three other buses before the LRV is replaced, the cost of the driver of any set of three will be the same).
The price of electricity (and that is was much cheaper then oil, even in the 1950s and 1960s when oil reached its lowest price ever) and that streetcars could haul more people then buses, was the reasons many streetcar lines lasted till the 1960s. If they had lasted till the mid 1970s and the oil crisis they would have survived till today (or be upgraded to LRV systems). The larger capacity of streetcars meant more paying passengers to spread the cost of the paying the driver of the LRV.
Now, with computers you can get the rear of a bus to drive more in the track of the front wheels then you could ten years ago, but that the driver has to keep the bus on its narrow track, something the rail itself does automatically in a Light Rail Vehicle (LRV).
BRT has been pushed since the 1970s, and keep on failing. The reason BRT succeeded in Latin America was politicians in many Latin Countries needed a solution that would be finished by the next election, BRT provided that by taking lanes away from auto drivers and giving them to buses. This is the reverse of what the LA Streetcar system did in the 1960s, gave up its exclusive right of way in the middle of a freeway (a freeway build AFTER the Streetcar) to the freeway as two extra lanes of traffic.
In most Light Rail system, it is a product of a long term project to provide transit for a corridor. It is much more like a new highway system through that corridor while keeping the present highway system. In most urban areas, to put a new highway system in the same corridor as an old highway system is hard to do, and really has not been done since the 1960s (and mostly done in the 1960s and 1950s as part of urban renewal projects to remove slums). Light Rail offers the ability to haul as many people as a new highway system without the massive constructions and destruction tied in with a new highway.
BRT is generally introduced and advocated by people who want to do what they did in Latin America, remove lanes from public roads and make them bus only. The biggest problem with such changes is opposition from people who believe the highway is to small already (they do NOT want to lose the extra lanes) and by the fact in many cities you have roads that have only two lanes in each direction (Thus you are looking at reducing these roads to roads without passing lanes). Good in theory, but the opposition would be intense,
The better solution would be an underground Light Rail system, that goes on top of the ground when it can. The key almost any transit system in urban areas must be independent of road system, something BRT promises but rarely delivers on for the simple reason BRT starts as a compromise to use the existing road system.
Sooner or later we have to accept the unpleasant fact that mass transit has to have its own right of way in urban areas. Light Rail is one way, Heavy rail is another. One of my favorite is overhead rubber tired people movers. I like these between Light Rail (or if you prefer subway or even BRT) stops. These should go overhead, on rubber tires (to minimize noise) and stop on every block.
An example of this was the old Skybus project Pittsburgh looked at in the 1960s:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1130&pid=556
The advantage of such a system, is being overhead no problem of worrying about intersections thus easy to automate. On short routes of less then five miles, ideal. Removes buses from city streets and provide adequate transit between faster transit stops (For example running an Light rail system on existing freight rail line, but the stops every 2-5 miles, and then have the people mover connect those stops with the ends of the line, and have people movers feeding into those light rail, heavy rail or even BRT stops).
Yes, in modern urban environments, you have to get mass transit off the streets, and to do that requires more then exclusive bus lanes, you need to make an effort to keep mass transit and regular traffic apart. Once you make that decision, BRT tends to fail, for it starts as a compromise between exclusive right of way and the mixing with traffic. That is NOT really workable in modern inner cities, and a bare improvement over using conventional buses. What advantages BRT has over Light Rail disappers once you decide that which ever transit system you adopt has to have its own right of way and it can NOT be an existing road way.
One of my favorite bus way is the Allegheny County South Bus way, an exclusive bus lane built in the late 1960s early 1970s south of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh could build it for it was along a long hillside that no one had built on except a railway. The busway used an old Streetcar Tunnel (That it shared with Streetcars, later Light rail vehicles) that had to be widened for buses (by taking out the safety walk way that had been installed when the tunnel was built). then along the old streetcar line, across PA 51 with the Streetcars, then over US 19 without the Streetcars. It thus avoided the Liberty Tunnels bottleneck. The line then went to the stopped and emptied into the even worse intersection of PA 88 and PA 51. On the way, it was joined by another streetcar line, and traveled on that streetcar line right of way. The bus way ended at the at the intersection of PA 88 and PA 51. Why? It was at that point it could no longer use it the railroad right of way the streetcar right of way, and had to go across PA 88 to avoid that horrible bottleneck. That required the bus authority to spend money and take over some businesses AND built at least two bridges. I would say it could provide buses on PA 88 a quick route into downtown Pittsburgh, but most people on PA 88 opt for the Streetcar line that continued to the Allegheny county border on its own right of way.
In simple terms, it bypasses a heavy used highway, but then ends, where the highway has had a bottleneck since it was opened in 1939.
Pittsburgh had another busway, along the old main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, called the East Busway. It barely hauls more people then the Streetcars lines (Slightly over 10% of the people who travel to downtown Pittsburgh on any given day, the LRVs does slightly under 10%, the South Busway is not in running for top stop, but since it duplicates a lot of the route of the LRV that could be transferred to the LRV, tells you how important those LRV routes are in Pittsburgh). It was ONLY possible for when the right of way was purchased, PennCentral (The successor to the Pittsburgh Railroad) was bankrupt and needed the money. The route goes through the middle of that part of Pittsburgh between the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, but misses Oakland. Oakland is where the Collages and Hospital are located, it is the third largest transit stop in Pennsylvania (Downtown Philadelphia is #1, Downtown Pittsburgh is #2). The busway hauls a lot of people, but when a Politician of one of the municipalities proposed making it a LRV system, he was attack as if he committed high treason.
Why was he attacked? his proposal had merit and would permit bypassing of stations by Express Light Rail vehicles. In effect show what a modern LRV system with the ability to do express routes could do. Worse, when Pittsburgh had upgraded its LRV system, it used an abandoned Railroad Bridge to get over the Monongahela River and into Downtown Pittsburgh. A subway of three stops was built for the LRV, removing rails from the streets of downtown Pittsburgh for the first time since the 1800s.
Now, that old railroad bridge connected to the old main line of the Pennsylvania Railway, where the East Bus Way was. As part of the LRV system, the LRV had replaced the existing rails wit LRV rails, up to the busway route as it emptied into downtown Pittsburgh. Think about it, the East busway, if converted to LRV could USE THE SUBWAY, a route buses can NOT take. Now the connection between the busway and the subway connects from the South Hills to the East Busway with only two stops in downtown Pittsburgh. The two stops further into downtown Pittsburgh would require the LRV to back up once it passes those two stations.
On the other hand, a LRV from East Liberty (on the East busway) could just continue south on the present LRV lines, just leaving passengers off at the stop where the two lines converge. Going the other direction, a South Hills LRV could just connect continue to East Liberty instead of the other two stops downtown. AS on the present track to the other two stops in Downtown Pittsburgh, you just one an LRV from that point of convergence to the other two stops (please note the above proposal was made BEFORE the LRV was extended under the Allegheny River to the Football stadium on the North Side, so today you would have a four stop short line, not just a two stop short line).
You quickly see why the proposal was shot down, for it would show how to make a very fast and frequent service LRV system. You have to also understand in Pittsburgh's downtown, you have free transfers to any other bus, streetcar or LRV on or under downtown streets. Furthermore you do NOT pay in Downtown Pittsburgh, you pay on the other end of your trip. i.e. you pay as you enter a bus or LRV as it heads to Pittsburgh, and you pay as you exit as it heads out of downtown Pittsburgh (which is defined as between the rivers and freeway separating Downtown from the rest of Pittsburgh to its east).
As you can see, what the politician proposed was hated by the Transit authority. It is NOT that hard to implement, would require new LRV cars (Cars that cost more then buses, but last twice as long). Most appointees on the transit authority feels they have a duty to keep cost low for their term in office, that buying high today, that would save the authority money over 30 years is off their agenda, for it does NOT benefit them. Worse, when I took that LRV, that first transit stop is where most people exited the LRV, thus you would have few complaints about having to switch LRVs. Yes, some people will complain, but most people will not.
Sorry, I have traveled on Buses, drove cars, rode Streetcars and LRVs. I have even ridden heavy rail transit AND an above ground automated people mover. I see the good points and bad points of most such systems. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) tends to fail, for it is NOT something that really moves people block to block like a people mover can, it can NOT haul the people a Light Rail System can and requires more input then running buses on the streets. A combination of Light Rail, hauling large number of riders good distances, along with People movers connecting people with those LRVs in heavily populated urban populations, and conventional buses in lower density suburbs also feeding into the LRV system, will provide much more coverage then ANY BRT system even in combination with an LRV, people mover and conventional bus systems.
BRT's work in Latin America for they could NOT wait for a better combination. In the US, the cost to implement a BRT are to close to an LRV to be cost effective. Any combination of LRV, people movers and buses would be a better combination that anything with a BRT.
Remember any transit system is part of a larger system, it is the system as a whole that has to be looked at and how the combination works to get people from home to work, to school and other places, and back again that is the key to transit. This is where the BRT tends to fail, it is to close to a LRV to be an effective local bus like a regular transit bus, it is to much like a bus to be a LRV. If you make the BRT more like a regular bus, that makes it even worse when compared to a LRV. When you make the BRT to much like a LRV, you make something that is less then effective as a regular bus.
LRV also have this problems, but given that most LRVs made today are built on their own right of way, there is a tendency only to build them in areas where their advantages outweigh their downsides and use regular buses elsewhere.
Sidenote: One of the advantages of BRT in Brazil is that is NOT the same buses as on regular bus routes. That permits BRTs to be operated more like LRVs, but in the US the tendency will be to use BRTs as regular buses (or regular buses on BRT routes). That defeats those points where the BRT comes close to LRV as an alternative.
Just a comment, that BRT has its place, but in most places in the US that is no where. Where BRT can do better then LRVs, regular buses can do even better. Where BRT can do better then Regular Buses, LRVs can do even better. In high density areas with a need for mass transit, automated overhead people movers beat out all three. That is the problem with BRT, it is defeated NOT by LRVs, BRTs. Regular buses or automated elevated people movers, but all four combined beat out BRTs.
