The Silly Argument Over BRT and Rail

[M II A II R II K]

The Silly Argument Over BRT and Rail


May 25th, 2011

By Yonah Freemark



Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...-brt-and-rail/

Referenced Articles: WSJ - Globe & Mail

As if operating in parallel, Toronto’s Globe and Mail and The Wall Street Journal each published articles last week describing the merits of bus rapid transit, which each newspaper described as the future of urban transportation. Both noted that BRT was cheaper to construct than rail lines. Each suggested that in an age of government pull backs and general skepticism over the value of public investment, BRT could offer substantial benefits to a transit system at a reasonable price. And each article concluded with a warning by rail proponents that buses wouldn’t be able to attract people out of their cars. This is a sensationalized opposition between two modes of transportation that should be thought of as complementary. There are advantages to improved bus service in some corridors, reasons to support rail in others.

- What is clear is that for the majority of American cities — excluding only a few in the Northeast — buses will remain the predominant mode of public transit for most riders, even after major expansions in train networks planned for cities from Charlotte to Phoenix. So even cities that choose to invest in rail projects must also spend on the improvement of their bus lines. Nor is the difference in costs between rail lines and BRT nearly as great as some would argue. The Journal article quotes Dennis Hinebaugh, head of a transportation center at the University of South Florida, saying “You can build up to 10 BRT lines for the cost of one light-rail line.” That might be true if you’re comparing a train operating entirely in its own right-of-way with a bus running in a lane painted on the street. But a streetcar is probably cheaper than a busway.

- The best argument for rail is that it has the ability to provide massive rush-hour passenger-carrying capacity without destroying the city through which it runs. Whether buried in a subway or operating quietly along in grassy medians, trains can be integrated into the public realm without diminishing the pedestrians-friendly qualities all urbanists should hope to encourage. BRT boosters often argue that their mode of choice can carry a similar number of riders, but neglect to mention that this is only possible when buses arrive every 10 seconds along highway-like four-lane corridors. These are conditions that destroy the walking environment.

- Fortunately for American cities looking to invest in new public transportation infrastructure, there are few places that demand the passenger-carrying capacity provided by those freeway-based BRT lines in places like Bogotá. In most metropolitan areas, a two-lane busway inserted on an arterial is perfectly appropriate and sometimes even beneficial for a city. Indeed, as we all know, the story that is too complicated for any mainstream paper to explain is that BRT can mean any number of things. The most rudimentary elements of BRT — the nice buses, the well-articulated stops, the traffic signal priority — are basics we should expect from all of our bus lines. Pushing for their implementation along certain corridors shouldn’t arouse much controversy. But these points are rarely discussed when the argument between modes are made.

- Better transit can come in many forms, but in a country in which the vast majority of people have no contact with public transportation this side of Disney World, making the argument for investments in more buses is difficult, to say the least. BRT is just not sexy until you’ve experienced it. Which is why the considerable success of BRT in South America has not convinced many U.S. cities to abandon their ambitions for more rail.

.....

[M II A II R II K]

U.S. Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit


May 26, 2011

By Itir Sonuparlak

Read More: http://thecityfix.com/blog/new-study...rapid-transit/

PDF Report: http://www.itdp.org/documents/201105..._Report-HR.pdf

.....

Titled, “Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit,” the study rates Los Angeles, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Eugene and Pittsburgh as the cities leading bus-based transportation, mainly due to their implementation of bus-rapid transit (BRT).

- Though all still in construction, the study also rates San Francisco Bay Area, Montgomery County of Maryland and Chicago as the three cities with BRT systems that have the best prospects of achieving a “gold-standard,” a certification awarded by the international non-profit Gold Standard in recognition of the system’s greenhouse gas reductions. This certification has never been awarded to a U.S. city.

- “By far the most important reason for this failure is that U.S. cities have far fewer transit riders and far more private car owners than most of the cities where gold-standard BRT systems have been implemented,” the study explains. As a result, it is difficult to make a direct comparison between some of the global best practices and the U.S. cases.”

- According to ITDP, today’s transit ridership in the U.S. is at a five-decade record high, with buses accounting for more than half of these trips. Yet, there is always room to improve, especially when the nationwide average bus speed is at 12.5 mph. “Passengers must often contend with limited service frequency, and with buses that don’t always run according to schedule,” ITDP explains.

.....

[fieldsofdreams]

BRT was cheaper to construct than rail lines, [...and] could offer substantial benefits to a transit system at a reasonable price.

Those are true, but, I think there's more to that article. I've been reading a book, entitled "Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for Communities" by Sigurd Grava (I downloaded the full book on my iPad 2), in which one chapter covers BRT exclusively. As I read through the chapter, I've discovered even more than just those facts:

• Buses (overall) have greater intrinsic advantages as an all-purpose transit mode, in which it is a service that can be implemented at less cost and faster than any other public transport.
• Rail services can never have the same flexibility as bus operations, either in the long- or short-term (e.g. buses can change network patterns or drive around stalled vehicles).
• It is a significant potential to upgrade bus operations that offers quick implementation and fast service once the systems are in place.
• BRT copes only with one dimension of a single mode (bus), but it is a critical dimension of a seminal mode.

The book even mentions about "improved safety" as one of the reasons to support BRT, in which it mentions "by providing monitoring systems, removing potentially dangerous features, and bringing many riders on the system".

However, yes, the silly argument continues on...

The articles, however, concluded with a warning by rail proponents that buses wouldn’t be able to attract people out of their cars. This is a sensationalized opposition between two modes of transportation that should be thought of as complementary.

Here's something we can all learn from Curitiba, again from the book:

In the early planning stages, the use of rail-based modes were considered, but Curitiba opted for buses as more appropriate in scale and service capability [...in which it provided] an economical, easily implementable, and adaptable approach. The integrated system relies heavily on the presence of inter-district (crosstown) service that feeds the busways and accommodates non-central movements.

Grava also applauds Curitiba's BRT efforts as:

The brilliance of (the city's) operational and technical bus service arrangements should not overshadow the system's principal accomplishment: a superior transit service driving and supporting an effective city structure and land use distribution.

I believe the problem really lies on the following thoughts:

• The bus mode has not yet been able to shed its inferiority complex, at least in the perception of the general public, and few people have expected or demanded much from it.
• Most BRT actions constrain to [...]the unbridled movement of automobiles, and the required political boldness to do that comes only when street conditions become truly desperate.
• Although the attitudes are changing, BRT still needs recognition and active support from federal agencies, municipal officials, transit operators, and community groups, in which they have described bus services as "underused and underdeveloped". They also believe that buses could do much more, with higher levels of consumer satisfaction and expanding services with relatively little capital expenditure.

I believe that the BRT will work, it needs active support from communities that support more public transportation and compact development to make it a win-win solution. Although it requires a lot more labor to operate such services, the results will pay off in time: better streetscapes, better communities, and better lifestyles for many people.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

I believe that the BRT will work, it needs active support from communities that support more public transportation and compact development to make it a win-win solution. Although it requires a lot more labor to operate such services, the results will pay off in time: better streetscapes, better communities, and better lifestyles for many people.

Actually I think you've got that backwards. Rail is the one that "pays off in time." BRT pays off right away since it is cheaper to construct, but has lower capacity, and higher labour and maintenance costs.

[fieldsofdreams]

Rail is the one that "pays off in time." BRT pays off right away since it is cheaper to construct, but has lower capacity, and higher labour and maintenance costs.

I think I stand corrected on that one. But, what do you think that maintenance costs are higher for BRT than rail? I mean, BRT uses buses that can be upgraded quickly with less effort and time consumed than upgrading the rail network. Plus, maintaining a rail network can be costly, depending on the services provided.

[Beta_Magellan]

Buses last a much shorter time than rail vehicles (generously fifteen years vs. thirty years, ungenerously ten years vs. forty years) and IC or hybrid drivetrains tend to have higher upkeep costs than electric ones, plus the added worry of fuel prices. There’s not much advantage to having a higher turnover in equipment—transportation vehicle design progresses very slowly, so in general you don’t have to worry about your vehicles going out of date. And even though rail vehicles tend to need a mid-life overhaul, this is still cheaper than having to buy all-new equipment (the only city I’ve heard of that does major bus overhauls is Toronto).

Don’t think that maintaining a busway isn’t costly, ether—just because it’s asphalt doesn’t mean it’s simpler to maintain than rail. Buses cause a lot of wear even on regular city streets, and busways need to be kept in good shape to ensure good ride quality and minimal wear on the buses themselves. I’m pretty sure LA’s Orange Line has already had a repaving or two.

[fieldsofdreams]

Buses last a much shorter time than rail vehicles (generously fifteen years vs. thirty years, ungenerously ten years vs. forty years) and IC or hybrid drivetrains tend to have higher upkeep costs than electric ones, plus the added worry of fuel prices. There’s not much advantage to having a higher turnover in equipment—transportation vehicle design progresses very slowly, so in general you don’t have to worry about your vehicles going out of date. And even though rail vehicles tend to need a mid-life overhaul, this is still cheaper than having to buy all-new equipment.

That's where another problem lies: fuel prices. That's why transit agencies nowadays are exploring (and even buying) hybrid-powered buses that run on a combination of water and [ultra-low-sulfur] diesel that would allow them to run cleaner and more efficiently than a traditional diesel-only bus. Although they may run a bit slower than traditional coaches, their environmental impact tend to be smaller (although it's debatable vs. rail) because they run using alternative sources. I mean, there are buses that operate on alternative fuels other than diesel nowadays, and it's good to see the buses evolving, albeit slowly, to integrate the new hybrid technologies available to them. And, for overhaul, I think that the main issue for bus overhaul would be repowering engines, much less for replacing seats or other equipment, which I know is considerably cheaper than getting a new vehicle. And I think by repowering the engines, their lives can be extended for some time (the real gauge for a bus to be retired is by mileage, not much in years of service) by enhancing the engine's features and getting the right spare parts needed for the job.

[Roadcruiser1]

I am actually taking a look into trolleybuses as another option besides light rail, but I still like light rail better, because it's cheaper to fix, and spruce up whenever it's needed.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

I am actually taking a look into trolleybuses as another option besides light rail, but I still like light rail better, because it's cheaper to fix, and spruce up whenever it's needed.

Trolleybuses carry a couple hundred thousand San Franciscans a day. They're great at climbing hills (due to electric power) and they're zero emission vehicles. That said, it's not uncommon for the catenary to be a hindrance--road conditions can disconnect the catenary from the power wire, and very wide obstructions cannot be circumnavigated because the catenary is only so long and the wire is fixed in place.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

Buses last a much shorter time than rail vehicles (generously fifteen years vs. thirty years, ungenerously ten years vs. forty years) and IC or hybrid drivetrains tend to have higher upkeep costs than electric ones, plus the added worry of fuel prices. There’s not much advantage to having a higher turnover in equipment—transportation vehicle design progresses very slowly, so in general you don’t have to worry about your vehicles going out of date.

Trolley buses last longer than Diesels. I would think that a bus way would be electrified, given its fixed routing. Despite being used on the busiest routes in Vancouver, trolley buses lasted 25 years here... they were all replaced a couple of years ago and were commissioned in 1982/1983.