+ All Categories
Home > Documents > bus or BRT

bus or BRT

Date post: 07-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: ali110011
View: 218 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
8
Related Links FTA Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program BRT Policy Center  National  BRT institute Calstart  Advanced Transportation Website APTA - American Public Transportation Assn. Light Rail  Transit Association New Electric Railway Journal  Transit  Rider website LightRail.C om Light Rail  Success Stories Light Rail Now/Light Rail Progress can be contacted at: Light Rail Now! [email protected] "Bus Rapid Transit" or "Quality Bus"? Reality Check Light Rail Progress · January 2004 (Rev.) A transit alternative increasingly counterposed to light rail transit (LRT) as an option for new and better transit service is so-called "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT). While improvements in basic bus transit services, by whatever name, are direly needed in North American cities, what is actually meant by "BRT"? The concept seems to be applied, by some of its most ardent proponents, to a wide swath of concepts – in effect, virtually any type of long-haul bus transit above regular local service in mixed street traffic or slow circulator/connector services. Examples offered by "BRT" promoters include: · Limited-stop service in mixed traffic (Honolulu), in some cases with traffic signal prioritization, and perhaps passenger stops upgraded with shelters, amenities, good signage, and even realtime information systems (e.g., Los Angeles's MetroRapid services). [Photo of LA's MetroRapid "BRT" from Transit Rider website] · Limited-stop circulator service in reserved lane (Orlando). · Express bus service connecting suburbs with a central city (Orlando). · Express buses operating on HOV lanes (Houston, Dallas, San Diego). · Buses operating in dedicated busway, reserved lanes, and mixed traffic (Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Miami, Curitiba, Bogota).
Transcript

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 1/8

Related Links

• FTA BusRapid TransitDemonstrationProgram • BRT PolicyCenter  • National BRT institute • Calstart AdvancedTransportationWebsite • APTA -American PublicTransportation Assn. • Light Rail Transit Association • NewElectric RailwayJournal • Transit Rider website • LightRail.Com • Light Rail Success Stories 

Light Rail Now/Light RailProgress can be contacted at:

Light Rail Now!

[email protected]

"Bus Rapid Transit" or "Quality Bus"? Reality

CheckLight Rail Progress · January 2004 (Rev.)

A transit alternative increasingly counterposed to light rail transit(LRT) as an option for new and better transit service is so-called"Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT). While improvements in basic bus transitservices, by whatever name, are direly needed in North Americancities, what is actually meant by "BRT"? The concept seems to beapplied, by some of its most ardent proponents, to a wide swath of concepts – in effect, virtually any type of long-haul bus transit aboveregular local service in mixed street traffic or slowcirculator/connector services. Examples offered by "BRT" promotersinclude:

· Limited-stop service

in mixed traffic(Honolulu), in somecases with trafficsignal prioritization,and perhapspassenger stopsupgraded withshelters, amenities,good signage, andeven realtimeinformation systems(e.g., Los Angeles's MetroRapid services).

[Photo of LA's MetroRapid "BRT" from Transit Rider website]

· Limited-stop circulator service in reserved lane (Orlando).

· Express bus service connecting suburbs with a central city(Orlando).

· Express buses operating on HOV lanes (Houston, Dallas, SanDiego).

· Buses operating in dedicated busway, reserved lanes, and mixedtraffic (Ottawa, Pittsburgh, Miami, Curitiba, Bogota).

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 2/8

· Buses in busways or reserved lanes with some form of guidance(Adelaide, Essen, Leeds, Nancy, Caen).

Fuzzy "BRT" concept

The Center for Transportation Excellence (CFTE) acknowledgesthis problem, noting

One of the problemswith defining BRT isthat there is no onekind of Bus RapidTransit. Boston's Silver Line [see photo, right],hailed as one of thenation's largest BRT

examples to date,utilizes standard busvehicles on a mix of shared-use anddedicated busways.Curitiba, Brazil's BusRapid Transit systemuses low-floored articulated buses on exclusive roadways, coupled withintensive supportive land-use development patterns along its corridors.Other significant variants that fall under the umbrella of the BRT definitioninclude express bus service, traffic signal priority technologies, and faster passenger boarding techniques.[CFTE website, http://www.cfte.org/trends/brt.asp, 2003/12/15; photo: C. Szabla]

Obviously, "BRT" isbeing applied to avery broad spectrumof quite diverse kindsof services (and,because of thisfuzziness of theconcept, we prefer toplace the term inquotation marks).Moreover, there

seem to beinconsistencies andcontradictions among the conflicting definitions of what constitutes"BRT". For example, while some "BRT" proponents assert that suchservices must be characterized by new, innovative, comfortablerolling stock, new, upgraded passenger stops with shelters andamenities, and similar features, clearly this is not uniformly thesituation in actual practice.[Photo of Miami-South Dade Busway by Jon Bell]

A number of services identified as "BRT" use older, relativelyspartan shelter facilities, with none of the modern amenities and

"bells and whistles" publicized for "BRT". Some supposedly "BRT"operations even use nothing more than simple bus stop markers in

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 3/8

lieu of stations. Furthermore, ordinary older buses, many of themwell worn in service, are commonly found in operation on severalbusways and in other "BRT" applications.

"New" spin to an old concept

While "BRT" is marketed as a new, revolutionary, innovative transitconcept, this application of bus technology has actually been in usefor a number of decades. "Bus rapid transit", as both a term andconcept, apparently was first proposed in Chicago in 1937. it waslater promoted aggressively by General Motors beginning in the1960s.[Source: Wilbur Smith & Associates. Transportation and Parking for American Cities, 1966, p.217; Light Rail Progress]

And this early "BRT"

proposal was notignored – indeed, bythe characteristicsdefining "BRT",virtually every major city in the country has long beenoperating some formof this service mode,from limited-stop andexpress bus servicesin mixed traffic, toHOV lanes, reservedstreet lanes, fullbusways, and trafficsignal prioritization ...and this has beenhappening for the past several decades. initially, "BRT" (in conceptif not in name) was implemented as a substitute for various levels of electric surface railway service – streetcar and interurban electricrailway services, in particular. (in St. Louis, some former streetcar lines were converted to "BRT" busways, such as the Hodiamont linein the photo, above right, seen in 1966.)[Photo: National Museum of Transportation, St. Louis]

While "BRT" has clearly been implemented in cities throughoutNorth America for many decades, what has been the result for public transit? Empirical evidence suggests that "BRT" has never fully met the original claims of its proponents as a superior "rapidtransit" mode to, and a replacement for, rail transit service.

Far from even a modest increase in ridership and publicacceptance, public transit experienced a relentless decline, both inpublic use and community image. The real surge in national transitridership has occurred only after the major investments in rail 

transit, especially LRT, mainly since the early 1980s. This in itself would tend to suggest that "BRT", in its variety of manifestations,

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 4/8

has been something less than a phenomenal success as asupposedly "cheaper" substitute for rail transit in bolstering thefortunes of North American public transport.

"BRT" = better quality, but not "rapid transit"

But "BRT", in an effective, usually multi-modal transit context,interfacing with various levels of rail transit service, has clearlydemonstrated its value internationally. in terms of a somewhathigher-level bus service, with limited stops, attractive, modernvehicles, well-defined stations with various amenities, reserved buslanes, prioritized or preempted traffic signals, and other significanttransit improvements – de facto "BRT" is widespread in Europeancities.

However, are theseservices truly "rapidtransit"? in almost allcases, applying"rapid transit" to busoperations all or partly in non-grade-separated alignments – indeed, even mixedgeneral traffic –seems a misnomer,with the potential of 

public deception and loss of credibility by the transit agency. in awide range of cases, including LA's famous MetroRapid service,and Boston's much-celebrated Silver Line "BRT" pictured earlier,the "rapid transit" seems to consist of nothing more, really, thanbuses competing with private motor vehicle traffic. What's "rapidtransit" about that? if transit professionals question this, the publicsurely are doing the same. The reality is unavoidable: in establishedusage, "rapid transit" has identified fully grade-separated transitservices – such as the Washington Metro (photo, above right).[Photo: L. Henry]

Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic, for example, an internationally acclaimed

transportation professor at the University of Pennsylvania, in hisclassic textbook Urban Public Transportation (1981), applies rapid transit to modes which operate in "a fully controlled R/W [right-of-way] without grade crossings.... in exceptional cases the R/W mayhave widely spaced grade crossings with signal override and gateprotection of the track ... since such crossings have little effect online performance." Dr. Vuchic further emphasizes that "Strictly, busrapid transit neither exists nor is it a viable concept..." (because of capacity and operational issues). (pp. 66, 62) The CFTE websitealso notes that Professor Vuchic "challenges the word 'Rapid' in thename Bus Rapid Transit, instead offering the term 'Bus Semi-RapidTransit' and arguing that 'Rapid' should only be used when referring

to exclusive-right-of-way rail transit."

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 5/8

Similarly, the institute of Transportation Engineers, inTransportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook (1976),differentiates "rapid transit lines" as "grade-separated" (p. 227). TheITE goes on to note that

In corridors where no grade-separated rapid transit exists, surface transitmay perform limited and express functions as well, although often withreduced speed in congested mixed traffic during peak periods. [p. 227]

Quality Bus? Good idea!

Thus, it is evident that, in virtually every case in North America, andeven in world "model" cases such as in Curitiba, the term "BusRapid Transit" is misapplied. Light Rail Progress suggests that"QB" – Quality Bus service – would be a more descriptive term for such bus service improvements than "BRT". (indeed, Europe, whichhas far outpaced North America in aggressively implementing andexpanding such services, has all but ignored the "BRT" epithet invogue in North America. instead, Quality Bus service appears to bethe preferred, and more accurately descriptive, term applied inEurope to these services.)

And certainly, such Quality Bus services are an essential element of the total mix of modes – including LRT and even grade-separatedrapid transit and innovative "gadget" systems in some cases –which contribute to making public transport a truly attractive,effective, and significant component of the mobility system, and

mobility choices available to the community, in today's urban areas.

"BRT" a substitute for LRT?

It must also be recognized, however, that, in North America, QualityBus service (marketed as "BRT") has, in effect, become a conceptoften manipulated in a heated and ongoing political conflict – thecontinent's somewhat exceptional ideological battle between someelements of the motor-vehicle, petroleum, and highway industrieson one hand, and various partisans of public transportation,including rail transit, on the other. (This struggle is well documentedin books like Jane Holtz Kay's Asphalt Nation and StephenGoddard's Getting There – The Classic Struggle Between Road and Rail in the American Century .)

Thus, in this partisan context, not only is "BRT" frequently applied toencompass almost any level of bus service above basic, local streetbus service, but also the term seems to be used somewhatdeceptively, often in a transit-focused form of "bait-and-switch". inthis ploy, the service level and appearance of a full, dedicatedbusway is first advanced, but then the cost of simple, street-buslimited-stop service (such as LA's MetroRapid bus operations) isassociated with it. For this reason, it is difficult to ascertain precisely

what kind of bus transit service is meant when the term "BRT" is

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 6/8

used.

However, "BRT" is commonly presented as a kind of interchangeable (but supposedly lower-cost) substitute for electric

LRT. For example, the US Federal Transit Administration's "BRT"website proclaims "Think Rail, Use Buses – That's the quickest wayto describe Bus Rapid Transit. BRT combines the quality of railtransit and the flexibility of buses."

This appears to be a highly misleading conception, ignoring the vastdifferences in performance and public appeal between the twomodes – and potentially leading to imprudent planning decisions.An avalanche of credible evidence suggests – for most comparableservice levels in the same corridor – clear advantages of LRT,particularly in terms of total cost (capital plus operating),environmental impact, attractiveness to potential riders, andinfluences on land use and transit-oriented development.

LRT vs. "BRT" comparison

These differences have been exhaustively analyzed by Edson L.Tennyson, PE, former Deputy Secretary of Transportation of Pennsylvania and a consulting transportation engineer withdecades of hands-on experience in the transit industry – much of itacquired in several systems operating LRT streetcars andinterurbans as well as buses. Tennyson presents hard evidence of the greater power of LRT to attract passengers, and fulfill ridership

forecasts, compared with busways. In an analysis based on FTAdata relating to recent LRT and "BRT" busway new starts,Tennyson concludes that "busways have attracted only one-third of the riders promised, but LRT has attracted 122 percent...."[E. L. Tennyson, "New York considering light rail", personal discussion paper (edited), 9 Nov2003]

Tennyson also pointsout, for mediumvolumes of passengers, that LRTcan achieve greater 

operating costsavings, primarilythough reducinglabor costs byrunning larger vehicles, entrainingvehicles, or both –something not available to buses within current technology. (Thephoto at right shows a 3-car San Diego Trolley train.) As a result, henoted in a 2002 analysis, "Light rail averages 175,000 annualpassenger-miles per employee, but buses only 125,000."[Photo: Transit Rider website]

The stark differential in LRT operating cost vs. that of bus is evident

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 7/8

from published FTA data – see, for example, our analysis How LightRail Saves Operating Cost Dollars Compared With Buses.Tennyson argues that LRT has an inherent cost efficiencycompared with bus. in a 2002 analysis, responding to arguments

promoting "BRT" presented by transportation consultant SamZimmerman, and using Zimmerman's cost data, Tennyson notesthat

Light rail cars are larger than buses .... If you take a typical quoted cost of $90 per bus-hour and divide by 57 passengers, you get $1.58 as the costper passenger [all US dollars]. At the same six square feet per passenger,light rail at $160 per car-hour will carry 120 to 135 passengers dependingupon the size of the car ... so the cost per passenger is $1.19 to $1.33 per passenger using Zimmerman's data. Light rail is 16 to 25 percent lesscostly for operations.[E. L. Tennyson, "Sam Zimmerman on BRT...", personal discussion paper (edited), 26 Oct.2002]

Of course, this analysis applies primarily to peak or other heavy-volume conditions. Offpeak and less intensive weekend ridershiptends to reduce the advantage of LRT's higher capacity and thusraise average costs. Nevertheless, LRT has tended to demonstratehigher offpeak ridership than bus, including "BRT" – thus the FTAdata, averaging both peak and offpeak, year-round, suggest adecisive operating cost advantage for LRT.

Tennyson also argues that, when the logistical needs of "BRT"busways are accounted for – as they have been done in recent"BRT" busway projects – the unit capital cost of busways hastended to be much higher than the unit capital cost of LRT. in ananalysis reported in the fall of 2003, Tennyson reports that

...exclusive busways are in no way less costly than light rail....Boston, Los Angeles, Ottawa and Pittsburgh have about 50 [total]miles of exclusive busway. At today's updated construction cost,they average over $50 million per mile plus a million a mile or twofor buses and garages. The buses only last 15 years....

Light rail for [total] 46 miles in Denver, to Portland Airport, in SaltLake City to Sandy, and east of Saint Louis, cost only $23 million

per mile including both cars and shops ([except] no shop atPortland Airport) The cars last for 35 or 40 years.[E. L. Tennyson, "$3.3 billion Freeway proposed for Honolulu", personal discussion paper (edited), 12 Sep. 2003]

Conclusion

The evidence from actual operating experience seems compelling.Bus services improvements, including low-cost Quality Bus, or "BRT", are essential – but they are not "cheaper rapid transit"substitutes for LRT or other rail. in transit as elsewhere, "you getwhat you pay for."

8/4/2019 bus or BRT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bus-or-brt 8/8

Light Rail Now! websiteUpdated 2004/01/22

More on "Bus Rapid Transit"

HOME | FEATURES | NEWS | EVENTS | FACTS | MYTHS | ABOUT LRN | CONTACT LRN | LINKS | SEARCH 

All website material © 2000-2007 Light Rail Now Project (unless otherwise indicated)


Recommended