To me Bus Rapid Transit is buses running on dedicated right of ways either in seperated lanes or there own roads. It is a shame that citys are passing off bus rapid transit as anything from buses with fancy bus stops to signal preemtion and shared lanes with other traffic. The original idea of rapid transit was that streetcar on streets would feed into a dedicated right of way grade seperated from other traffic.
-Not before the rail fans get into a hissy fit here Bus Rapid Transit has its place because it allows for one seat rides to and from destinations and since new Transit cars can run a million dollers each could be cheaper for citys that can afford the right of way but not the cars-
Only a couple a citys have such a system-1. Pittsburgh had the second system after Los Angelos and built there busway system (On old railroad right of ways I might add) in there eastern and southern suberbs.2.Hartford CT uses a dedicated HOV lanes out to there Airport,
3 Cleveland is building the “Silver Line” busway down its main street after about 60 years of debate and studys that clearly said that a subway was needed.
4 LA has a short busway called the El Monte busway which is disaster after they allowed car pools on it.
5 Eugene is building a system connecting its college with its downtown but I would hardly call Eugene a sprawling metro area in need of a expensive mass transit system
6.Seatlle Bus tunnel-Closed for repairs…
Boston and most of the other citys that I see really just have a fancy bus
G’day, Y’all, I read that Los Angeles had to shut its BRT stations because use got so low that the stations became crime scenes. Most “experts” downplay the romance of the rails but the fact is that railroads add some adventure to the day, whereas buses do not. It matters not whether bus traffic is separated (note the a in the second syllable) or whether it runs on the same concrete as automobiles, people do not like buses and won’t use them if they can help it.
On a more positive note, I like buses just fine. I regularly take buses several times a week. If I need to take a bus after I get off the Light Rail, I have no problems with that. Nor do I have problems with walking. Maybe I’m just eccentric… [:D]
Buses have a definite place in the public transit picture, so I’m not at all offended by the original post. Light rail, or in my personal lexicon, streetcar is making a major comeback. I fully believe this trend will continue far into the future. Even “vintage” streetcar operations are attracting major attention, and at least one firm builds state of the art "vintage’ streetcars. I recall the smooth, rapid, comfortable, ride provided by Los Angeles Transit Lines, later MTA, PCC cars.The new state of the art vehicles are everybit as good. Back to the PCC for a moment. The classic lines of these cars still look good well over 60 years from the car’s first appearence on the transit scene. At the end of the day,one of the best arguments for streetcars, is their environmentally friendly character.
I agree that most times regular city bus service with a wrinkle or two is being passed off as BRT. Real BRT exists very few places and no moderate to large city has a whole network in place, yet BRT keeps surfacing as some sort of magic transit bullet.
The problems with “real” BRT, as I see it are:
If you build dedicated ROW, then the costs are the same as light rail, but passenger comfort is not as good. If you do it on the cheap and use existing lanes or incorporate it with HOV lanes, you don’t have rapid transit - you just have commuter busses.
If you build BRT to use existing highway ROW, with dedicated stations in the median, then you will only exacerbate congestion on access roads to the highway and have to buy spend $$ for expensive land next to the highway for the P&R lots.
Stations in the median have other problems, too. How long is the walk from the park and ride lot to the station platform? How many stairs? What about noise and air quality for passengers as they wait?
The main benefit for BRT is that it can use existing city streets, so may destinations can be served w/o expensive construction. But, even a moderately successful BRT network in a moderately sized city would clog city streets with busses.
Farebox recovery from a BRT network is an unknown. My county outside Atlanta has a successful express bus operation. The most popular route runs with 6 minute headways during rush hour and often has standees. Still, farebox recovery is only about 25% of cost. Rail usually does better - 50% or better. A “Real” suburban BRT network is unknown because it doesn’t exist anywhere.
And, finally, busses are the second lousiest way to commute. I ride an express bus everyday. They seating is cramped, the climate control system is more primative than a 1960s auto. The ride quality is fair at best and sound insulation is poor. And, even though it
Prior to the recent rail service expansion, the RTA operated the Southwest Service as a rail/bus operation. The bus service ran express and stopped only at the rail stations, and only rail tickets were honored on the bus service. This operation worked well, bus times being only marginally slower than train times, and was probably a lot cheaper to operate until track and station improvements plus expanding ridership allowed a rather dramatic expansion of the rail service.
Pace, the RTA’s bus operating entity, also operates several suburb-to-suburb express bus operations with a fare structure distinct from local bus operations. Perhaps somebody else can weigh in on how well-patronized these services are.
Many years ago, David P. Morgan opined, in response to proposals for a rail commuter operation in Milwaukee, that rail may not always be the proper proposal for mass transit operations, especially when only bus-size ridership is involved.
The Metro bus Orange line here in LA as envisioned isnt that bad of an idea, articulated busses that can carry about the same # of people as a single trolley car running on dedicated asphalt roadways which are cheaper than rail, and burning clean fuel, not diesel. looks good on paper.
In practice it seems the designers didnt take reality into mind.
The busways intersect regular roads just like the trolley’s would, but unlike the Gold line trolley, which has crossing gates on all four approaches and all four pedestrian crossing approaches. The Orange line? …a red light…which are increasingly being completely ignored by the idiots we call ‘drivers’ here.
I made a prediction the week before it opened. One Week, was all I gave before a crossing accident occured, took four days, BANG! a complete moron blew thru the red light and HIT the bus broadside. Since has been a continuous litany of collisions…Talk about retarded behavior…and stupid planning.
The only way to make these things really work is either provide gates, or grade seperation, both which negates the ‘cost savings’ aurguments used by boosters.
Might as well have just built the dang trolley in the first place…
The romance of a transportation system only goes so far. The C&NW commuter bilevels were something mysterious (how they stacked two levels inside) and alluring when I never got to ride them as a kid (rode the El train and often got to ride that jump seat across from the cab that is as good as any cab ride).
When I had to commute to work on commuter bilevels, that got old pretty quickly. Likewise, as a kid I thought jet planes were cool, but with airport security and tight seats and all that is air travel today, that got old too. When the Ford Taurus came out, I thought it was the coolest looking thing, but having put 140,000 miles plumped into the seat cushion, that has worn out its novelty.
City buses? I ride them some to cut back on driving, and they are OK I suppose, but the seats are packed pretty tight and with Wisconsin body styling (my own hip width and thunder thighs as well), lets say you are in snuggled closer to a stranger than my wife is to me in car. The climate control is well regulated, but they are noisy and boy do they rattle. And the quality of the ride in terms of smooth starts stops and turns depends a lot on the driver.
Intercity buses? I was at a conference where they had them to shuttle attendees to hotels, and the seats, noise level, and ride quality seemed a lot better than a city bus, which in turn is much much better than a school bus, which is just a converted truck. I had a pleasant ride in an intercity bus between Osaka and Kyoto Japan a couple years back – and it had seat belts!
Paul Milenkovic is on the mark about the relative comforts of mass transit modes. Being a long-time (since at least high school) patron of CTA/Pace/Metra and their predecessors, there is really not a whole lot of difference between a bi-level gallery coach and a current Pace or CTA bus. The L is a bit more cramped but has lots of standing room. Any equipment in city or suburban service is going to be a bit short on legroom and creature comforts.
Here in Pittsburgh the busways and the HOV lanes work well because they are grade seperated and bridge over existing roads. The Stations are like light rail stations and have steps and eleveaters to get onto. Other street buses feed on to the busway and express into Downtown. The Northside HOV handles Greyhound and Commuter buses from as far away as New Castle PA. The light rail works best for the south hills because only the traction moters can handle the steep hills. Commuter rail is being talked about to outlying countys because the buses are filled to the max capasity…another alternitive could be to have guided bused that are driven by sensors in the pavement that detect curves and alow for more then one bus to be hooked togther in road trains and have MU operations. Las Vegas does this on one of its bus lines
There is another factor in use of busses. They can go anywhere there are streets they will be able to run on. We cannot say that about rail bound rapid transit equipment. In the event a mass evacuation is needed busses can be sent out to where people can be safe until the disaster is “over” and the people can return. Railbound equipment cannot do this unless they are run on railroads, as opposed to rapid transit lines. (either light or heavy rail) On an almost completely unrelated thought, when I had to ride busses, I’d close my eyes and pretend I was in an RDC. Some early/mid 50’s GM busses used the same engine the RDCs used! Producers of videos: RDCs did not use EMD 567s, they had Detroit 6-71s, so if you want accurate sounds for an RDC, record an older GMC bus, and dub in the track noise.
Rail Rapid Transit is good if you have at least 50,000 people or more using a particalar corridor.
The railroad cars are able to carry a whole bunch of people at once in packs of 200 or more because they can be put in trains. In Pittsburgh and Buffalo the most cars that I have seen on a light rail train is 3 cars which at about 70 people a car during a hockey game is nothing to what a Chicago el train holds during even non rush hour. Why is it that that 4 Large Citys that have heavy rail systems (Chicago-New York-Miami that have heavy rail have NOT installed light rail?) Is it because light rail as operated does not have the capasity that can be had by a heavy rail system?
What I am advocating here is a system of a X shaped route in meduim sized to just below major metro of heavy rail or commuter rail with a beltway of Bus Rapid Transit running on HOV lanes feeding into the stations along with enclosed stations on the HOV Lane. Buses would be kept out of the downtown core with the exception of a loop bus or trolley. The Buses both express and HOV would feed into the core rail system. Busways do have the avatage of using existing mediun strips and next time you drive around please notice the empty pavement meduim strips on 4 lane roads. By blocking that off you can create a express bus lane.
I’ll agree that the romance goes away after a few dozen daily trips.
I’ll also agree that it’s wrong to dismiss busses out of hand.
And, nothing is a boring as being stuck creeping along in a 5-6 lane sea of traffic day after day, particularly when NPR is in “Beg-a-thon” mode. I’d much rather sit back and stick my nose in a book.
I’ve been a regular commuter on lots of different equipment.
I’ve ridden NJT suburban routes on 1960s GMC, 1970s Flxibles and 1980s MCIs. The 60s GMC busses were smooth riding but drafty (they were old when I was riding them) They were underpowered and had 4 speed “crashbox” transmissions. It was a marvel to watch the driver shift smoothly. The 70s Flxibles were rough riding with lots of engine noise but more powerful and had better heat, but AC was not integrated with the heat so they were stuffy in the spring and fall. The MCIs were much nicer all around than either the GMCs or Flxibles, but then they were really intercity busses and not gussied up city busses.
I’ve ridden SEPTA suburban and city rail routes. On the Marcus Hook Line, the Silverliner IVs were decent all around and the 3+2 seating tollerable - when you could get a seat… The MP54s were on their last legs in 1979 when I rode them. They rode OK, but only had 40-65 airconditioning - 40 windows open at 65 mph. The Silverliner IIs and IIIs would occasionally pinch hit for my Silverliner IV train set. Some had 2+2 seating, which was nicer, but overall there was no real difference.
On the Market St. Line, I rode the old “Almond Joy” cars. They were terrible in just about every way. Lousy ride - lots of hunting. Lousy heating. No AC. Noisy. On the Broad St. Line, I rode the old, original cars and some of the hand-me-down Bridge Line cars. They all rode well, but were a complete disaster in just about every other aspect. The Bridge Lin
Keep in mind since the very begining of Streetcars/Light Rail you had to have a way to get to the station stop. Originally 1,2,3 or 4 miles was walking distance. My grandfather told me his mother became to ill to walk the distance to the “Dummy” line so they used a local Jitney driver who was less expensive than a cab. When I enquired what a “Dummy” engine it was a small 0-4-0 steam engine encased in a wood box so as not to spook the horses in town. Yes the Jitney was horse drawn and was cheaper as they picked up multiple fares which cabs could not. Without feeder systems either HOV/MAX or local buses you will not have a good rail system. The two compliment each other.
Speaking as someone who rides NJT bus lines everyday, I can honestly say anything as an alternative would be most welcome. The light rail lines are nowhere near where I live and unless you are specifically going to NYC, Transit doesn’t seem much to care if you get around or not. The ironic thing about all this is that there is a long abandoned trolley line here that has an intact right-of-way and would have started right next to where I live and would have gone right to where I work! It’s almost sickening.
Seems that If I remeber correctly many suberbs had there own bus systems that the suberb ran before they were consoladated into REGIONAL transit systems…So it the bus comapany started out private and then was taken over by the burough and then by the port authority…
The problem that I see here is that the roads can be owned by the state,county or city and all three would have to agree that they want a express bus only lane on a route. In some places all three agencys are at each others necks for funds…
When the Upper Darby-Llanerch/Ardmore trolley outside Philadelphia was discontinued in 1966(?), part of the right of way in Haverford Township was converted to a busway. SEPTA’s Route 103 uses it. I’ve seen buses use that right of way (in the mid-80s when I was attending grad school at Villanova).
Ah, PCCs: I rode one on a Feb. 1979 snow day when my HS was closed and I took the SEPTA Route 74 (now Route 119) from the entrance of my apartment complex to Darby, then transferred to a PCC on Route 11 and rode that subway-surface line to City Hall. A beautifully shaped vehicle. I believe there is one in the SEPTA minimuseum at 1234 Market St. in Philly.
Miami has something as an alternative to light rail, the downtown people mover. And they are on the move to get light rail as well. For the specific corridors where it makes sense.
Chicago is also discussing restoration of streetcars, specifically a line that links the two railroad stations used my the commuter trains (Union Station and the Northwestern Transportation Center) with the Loop and with northern Michigan Avenue.
New York has simply not yet recovered from the LaGuardia: “I hate streetcars and noisy elevated trains” era. In the massive Brooklyn bus conversion program, in the 1950’s, they abandoned a line that was pure light rail by anyone’s definition. The Nortons Point Line. It shared the large Stillwell Avenue (Coney Island) eight rapid transit tracks elevated station with its own two tracks and with a same-level transfer (extra fare) to what I believe was the West End Line platform, now the D train, one of the four main routes to Manhattan serving the station. It had no street running whatsoever, and with its 1928-era double-end Peter Witt lightweight cars it was a fast and efficient operation. I suspect that in rush hours, the bus takes three times the time to get to the end of the line. Street running over an abandoned line was needed to get to and from maintenance and repair, but creative thinking would have produced a replacement light rail car that could at least be pulled (if not equipped with third rail pickup) over the rapid transit tracks (and there was a track connection prior to 1940 that could have easily been restored) when maintenance or repair was required. Many of the on-street bus routes in all of the boroughs would be better served by streetcars, either modern smaller light rail cars like Portland, OR, or heritage cars with modern performance and AC, or PCC’s. But NY still has not gotten over its prejudices. It wil