New York MTA is developing a “Bus Rapid Transit” route. Touted as having the advantages of Light Rail without the fixed plant development costs, if successful, would this change the minds of planners to maintain what’s in place, but abandon the development of future light rail lines (or convert “planned, but not built” LRT into BRT to reduce capital costs?)
July 1, 2008 N.Y. MTA and N.Y. DOT partner to launch BRT MTA New York City Transit is joining the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide Select Bus Service (SBS) - a new type of rapid bus operation employing advance fare payment, dedicated travel lanes and traffic signal priority.
The introduction of SBS to the Bx12 is the culmination of a three-year collaborative effort among NYC Transit, DOT, and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). NYC Transit has also worked closely with the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Transportation to develop a process to keep the bus lanes clear of traffic, insuring the free flow of buses along the Select Bus Service corridor.
Bronx bus customers along the Bx12 route will be the first to use the new service, which is designed to be faster, more reliable and more efficient than current bus operations, incorporating the efficiency and capacity of light rail transit without the limitations and construction costs of a fixed-rail system.
NYC Transit’s Select Bus Service, like other Bus Rapid Transit systems around the country, uses Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and prior to boarding proof-of-payment fare collection. Traffic signal prioritization will hold or advance a green signal by several seconds to allow a bus through an intersection without stopping.
New York MTA is developing a “Bus Rapid Transit” route. Touted as having the advantages of Light Rail without the fixed plant development costs, if successful, would this change the minds of planners to maintain what’s in place, but abandon the development of future light rail lines (or convert “planned, but not built” LRT into BRT to reduce capital costs?)
July 1, 2008 N.Y. MTA and N.Y. DOT partner to launch BRT MTA New York City Transit is joining the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide Select Bus Service (SBS) - a new type of rapid bus operation employing advance fare payment, dedicated travel lanes and traffic signal priority.
The introduction of SBS to the Bx12 is the culmination of a three-year collaborative effort among NYC Transit, DOT, and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). NYC Transit has also worked closely with the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Transportation to develop a process to keep the bus lanes clear of traffic, insuring the free flow of buses along the Select Bus Service corridor.
Bronx bus customers along the Bx12 route will be the first to use the new service, which is designed to be faster, more reliable and more efficient than current bus operations, incorporating the efficiency and capacity of light rail transit without the limitations and construction costs of a fixed-rail system.
NYC Transit’s Select Bus Service, like other Bus Rapid Transit systems around the country, uses Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and prior to boarding proof-of-payment fare collection. Traffic signal prioritization will hold or advance a green signal by several seconds to allow a bus through an intersection without stopping.
a few of the BRT items mentioned need not be unique to BRT, so why aren’t they more prevalent already?
Self service or honor system proof of payment seems to be the wave of the future for new rail installations, but other than Toronto’s Queen Street I don’t know of any existing North American route that went from pay as you pass the operator to present proof of payment when asked. And Toronto implemented it very simply, http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/proof_of_payment.html, if you pay when you get on at the front door you get a paper transfer that looks, and is just as good as a paper transfer on any other route, except it says “POP”, otherwise you can board at any open door and don’t have to present anything unless the randy random roving inspector asks to see your ticket.
Boston and San Francisco should implement it, especially since they run 2 car trains and can then reassign the 2nd car’s operator. Oops, did I just answer my own question, they can’t do it because they can’t manage to reassign that second motorman without union problems? Ironically San Jose and Sacramento, new installations flanking San Francisco, have POP fare collection and 1 man trains.
But overcoming the second operator featherbed has been done. New heavy rail systems, PATCO Lindenwold, BART, Atlanta, Baltimore, Washington DC and Miami all started with 1 man train operation, no conductor to open and close doors. Then Philadelphia managed to do so one at a time on its existing Ridge-Broad and Market-Frankford subways, and New York has at least some subway lines that are now 1 man operation. This should be an indication that union and safety issues shouldn’t prevent converting an existing pay as you pass system to a self service proof of payment system.
I know of no North American bus route that has POP, does anybody know?
I didn’t save the article where a point was made that bus rapid transit (BRT) is being encouraged not so subtlely by the Federeal Transportation Administration. BRT is exempt from some requirements for rail projects which shortens the process by at least two years. Apparently, BRT proposals are practically guaranteed approval.
This is behind the rush for federal dollars with BRT proposals and alternatives; and I’ve seen it in the Chicago area. One City of Chicago proposal for an Ogden-Cermak BRT follows a bus route that was being considered for discontinuance and roughly parallels the Pink Line (Douglas L). The Cook- Du Page Corridor Study showed a grid of BRT/HOV routes across Du Page County. Interestingly, no one has worked out how BRT, mostly along highways bypassing community centers and suburban rail stations, will be coordinated.
Furthermore, BRT is seen as a back-door funding of road capacity improvements, adding lanes, associated easement and bridge reconstruction, and dislocation, with transit money when combined with HOV use.
The New York MTA is one agency that is completely prejudiced against light rail in all forms. This dates back to the LaGuardia days, when the city hurried up to abandon streetcars and any other kind of electric street transportation in favor of internal-combustion-engine buses. The only rail they deal with is commuter rail or subway. The MTA has “studies” in the works for building light rail along 42nd Street in Manhattan and possibly converting the Staten Island North Shore line to light rail (which wouldn’t make sense since the North Shore Line has high platforms still and it would make the line incompatible with the South Shore route to Tottenville), but that’s all they are, studies. So just because the MTA embraces BRT does not mean that all cities will suddenly favor BRT over LRT, by any stretch.
And many a city that emulated Robert Moses’ anti-rail bias in the forties, fifties and sixties have had reason to regret it in the eighties, nineties, and now. (BTW Moses was very pro-expressway, but he has also done some really grand things, like have public parks and the Triborough Bridge built, so I don’t want to paint him as a totally bad guy.)
I agree, but that’s not my principal concern. Could it be that planners will be attracted to better running times (versus those times for standard bus routes) and the low cost of no overhead wires, no railbed, somewhat less expensive equipment, etc.
According to FTA, there are other BRT projects being funded during 2009:
Flagstaff, AZ - Mountain Links BRT - $6.24 million in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase) This proposed 5.8-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) line will serve the campus of Northern Arizona University (NAU), nearby shopping centers, and downtown Flagstaff. The proposed line will combine two existing local bus routes as well as an on-campus shuttle system and would feature 1.3 miles of dedicated guideway. The Mountain Links BRT project includes 24 new stations, signal prioritization, and the purchase of eight electric-hybrid vehicles. The proposed service would carry 4,150 daily riders when it opens in 2010.
Fort Collins, CO - Mason Corridor BRT - $11.18 million in FY 2009 (Medium Rating, Project Development Phase) The City of Fort Collins, is proposing a 5-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system within its Mason Transportation Corridor (MTC). The “Mason Express” or “MAX” right-of-way would operate at-grade in mixed traffic from the existing North Transit Center 1.2 miles to the northern edge of Colorado State University (CSU) and continue in a 3.8-mile exclusive right-of-way to the proposed South Transit Center. Service would operate at 10-minute peak frequencies. With a federal Small Starts share
Since none of that is characteristic of BRT (not even “no railbed” since a lot of BRT uses paved guideways instead of rails), then the answer is still no. Buses still do not outlast LRVs. Maintenance of paved guideways are higher than that of railways (especially during the winter). Some BRT uses trolleybuses, which includes the sunk costs of double overhead wires. No BRT has outdone LRT in terms of ridership, that I’ve seen, especially when the two have to compete.
In some instances commuter rail, especially if it can use existing rights-of-way, is the best solution to moving commuters in an urban environment. In other instances light rail is the better way to go. Frequently, it is only feasible if it can use existing or abandoned railway lines, as was the case in Dallas, which uses former railway rights-of-way for most of its route miles. Bus Rapid Technology (BRT) is probably a better fit where population densities are low, and distances are short to medium. And the roadways can be restructured to accommodate dedicated bus (HOV) lanes for at least part of the route. The key is to select the solution that best solves the problem.
Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Denton, Houston, and El Paso, amongst others, are studying BRT. Even Dallas, which is the Texas Mecca for light rail, is studying it for at least two reasons:
The cost of the Dallas light rail system has broken the piggy bank. The Orange Line is over budget to the tune of $1 billion. Moreover, since most people who live in the Metroplex are not close to the commuter rail line or one of the light rail lines, or are going across the system as opposed in parallel with it, they are not able to use the light rail lines. Thus, BRT would be a better option to meet their needs.
BRT buses can cost considerably less than light rail vehicles depending on the type of vehicle chosen and its capacity. Those planned for Austin will cost approximately $572,000 compared to more than $1 million apiece for DART’s light rail cars, which were purchased in 1994, or nearly $700,000 for Houston’s light rail vehicles. The Leander to Austin commuter rail vehicles (DMU) cost an eye popping $4,500,000 for each vehicle.
BRT buses have an average life expectancy of 15 years as opposed to 30 years for light rail vehicles. So they have to be replaced more often.&
In the Twin Cities Metro Transit is considering large fare increases for the bus routes because the sharp rise in diesel prices has busted their budget, on the other hand the increase in electricity costs for the LRT is more modest.
Is anyone considering (articulated) trolleycoach for the future, other than the handful of cities that still have some? I’ve heard that trolleycoaches are an efficient and energy-efficient way to move medium-sized crowds short- to medium distances. If more people want to go farther, then LRT is the way to go. To handle a flood of people long metro distances (10+ miles or so), commuter rail is the best. IIRC.
The Hiawatha corridor LRV’s are articulated in pairs. The Twin Cities has also had articulated buses running on the streets(not sure if they still do…).
The ‘BRT’ idea will find favor for low initial cost & flexible routing options. The long term operating costs(fuel/bus replacement) & getting stuck in traffic(even with ‘priority signal routing’) are items that must be weighed by each community. All of these ideas have merit, but it is hard to consider any of these as the ‘one size fits all’ solution.
No, that’s not an advantage, nor is it even a characteristic. Bus routes tend to not change very frequently, especially at their cores. Things get very expensive relating to startup costs to create limited-service alternate routes (created via pandering, to boot) that end up fizzling out due to lack of demand or inability to recoup costs to a certain requirement. Furthermore, bus routes that change too frequently tend to drive away passengers due to the confusion it creates.
Also, BRT special routes are just as fixed as rail. Not to mention more expensive to maintain than rail.
I don’t know how long it took CATS to plan, fund and build its system, so I have to ask: did the introduction of antique trolleys help influence the local gov’t that they should give LYNX a go?
Those trolleys are not antique. They are only a couple of years old.
The system did start when a private non profit group purchased and restored a historically significant antique trolley which they ran on a short section of abandoned N&S right of way, but those green and yellow trollies in the picture were purchased new by CATS.
The integrated transit system is under construction and is not planned to be completed until 2030. It is funded with a dedicated 1/2 % sales tax. So far they have purchased 175 new buses and 16 light rail trainsets. The first light rail line has been up and running since November and is been averaging many more rides per day than even the most optimistic estimates. They have recently ordered 4 more trainsets because of the load. The second light rail line is in the engineering stages at this time. The third line, which will be commuter rail, is still in planning. The busways for the 4th line are under construction as part of a road widening and upgrade project, but the people in the area to be served by that BRT line are still doing everything possible to change it to light rail. There is also a trolley line planned through city center.
The success in Charlotte has just resulted in the state government passing a new law allowing several other cities to use the local sales tax model to begin similar projects.
Please show us the numbers for these assertions. The DOT does not agree with you. It is one of the reasons why they are pushing BRT in a number of environments.
In Dallas and Fort Worth the light rail and commuter rail lines converge downtown. That’s because they were designed as a hub and spoke systems when almost everyone worked downtown. Many of the bus routes also converge downtown. Routes through downtown tend to stay the same, but they have changed over the years.
Many of the newer bus routes run across town, i.e. from one outlying employment center to another, in response to the changing employmnet centers in the Metroplex. It was easy to switch the buses to run across town as the new centers unfolded.
The rail lines cannot be moved although they can be abandoned. New ones could be built, but as I have pointed out in previous posts, but the cost is prohibitive. More than 80 per cent of the Metroplex light rail and commuter rail systems run on former railway lines. That is the only way the communities could have afforded them. Funding new rail lines, of whatever stripe, to run across the Metroplex, is simply out of the question. Its to
The proponents of building a light rail system in Austin released recently their preliminary cost estimates. The estimated price tag for the light rail line, which would run from the airport to downtown Austin and the University of Texas, for a distance of 15.3 miles, would be $600 million. That works out to approximately $39 million per mile.
Coincidentally, Capital Metro released its estimate of the cost of the first phase of the BRT plan for Austin. The price tag for the two starter routes, which would run from south Austin to North Austin, a combined distance of 57 miles, would be $40 million or approximately $702 thousand per mile.
I wonder how many of the people who have stated a preference for light rail over BRT understand the cost and funding implications or who will pick up the tab.
Unlike Adelaide, where the BRT runs on a dedicated right-of-way for a portion of the routes, most BRT in the United States runs or will run in dedicated lanes on existing roadways, as is the case in Dallas. Except in specific locations, i.e. downtown Austin, BRT will run on streets that are used by other vehicles.
BRT in Austin is expected to reduce travel times by approximately 20 per cent over existing bus route times. The primary tool for doing so will be the ability of the driver to control the traffic signals, thereby reducing the amount of time waiting for a signal to change. Another tool will be limited stops at locations that will look a lot like a light rail stop. And the third tool will be a pre-paid fare system so that the driver does not have to wait for the passengers to deposit their fare.
Given the numbers that I showed for the implementation of light rail in Austin vs the implementation of BRT, the future value of the difference could cover a lot of maintenance, even if your assertion is true. Moreover, the investment in BRT would buy 57 miles of route as opposed to 15.3 miles for the light rail.
I have provided verifiable number regarding the cost to construct light rail vs. the cost to implement BRT in Austin. I would like to see some verifiable numbers from the people who claim that the cost of maintaining a bus lane in the U.S. is four times the cost of maintaining a tram line.
