I’ve long been dubious about so-called “Bus Rapid Transit” as a cheaper alternative to light rail, because it so often amounts to little more than just a bus with the words “Rapid Transit” painted on the side, and for reasons Atrios perfectly sums up:
I’ve got nothing against BRT, and it certainly has the potential to have some of the benefits of rail at less cost, but the problem with BRT in practice is that there are always ways of doing it cheaper. So you start with the light rail line plan. That’s too expensive. So, ok, you consider a full BRT plan with fully dedicated lanes, signal priority, etc. But then some politically connected people start complaining about the loss of a lane for automobiles in their neighborhood. Suddenly…you don’t have dedicated lanes throughout the route. And, then, well, those electronic arrival signs get the axe due to more budget concerns. The point is, it’s really easy to go from “cheaper version of light rail” to “just another bus system” as the process goes on.
Speaking of “politically connected people,” this is exactly the sort of BRT system that Kemper Freeman Jr. envisions across the I-90 bridge instead of light rail… the kind that doesn’t have its own dedicated lanes, and so isn’t really rapid.
At some point people are going to start looting limos for their cheap and easy fuel supplies, and holding the billionaires inside them for ransom.
If it doesn’t have a dedicated lane, it’s totally, unremittingly bogus. But if it does, it can work pretty well.
I was a skeptic until I rode the Metrobus in Mexico City — a single line down Insurgentes, the longest and maybe busiest street in the world. The inside lane each direction is bus-only, with a raised separator that you could drive over but might screw up your tires doing so (cops do it all the time). Special raised platforms with corresponding special buses, and a separate farecard system. They’ve opened a second line since I was there, and are planning to integrate it into the Metro (subway), so there would be shared entry, transfers, etc. The fact that it’s 5 pesos (about 35 cents) is pretty nice too (the Metro is 3). It moves an astonishing number of people up and down that street from the northern part of the city all the way down to the university (which is ten times the size of the UW).
It’s not necessarily a good replacement for a subway system but it’s perfect for that kind of straight-shot right-of-way down existing wide street. Downtown to Bellevue Square would work. But it has to be dedicated-lane all the way, or it’s WORSE than nothing — because it’s a separate system from the regular buses.
It would make more sense, though, as a straight shot down Aurora from 145th to the airport. It would run at least three times faster than the 358.
The problem with running it to Bellevue is that all that really accomplishes is putting a halt to the light rail network. The value of a rail network doesn’t reside in any one line; it’s in the NETWORK of lines. Our current light rail is close to worthless; it’s only as it expands that those existing stations suddenly start to take on value.
That’s what Kemper is doing, of course — trying to kill light rail.
One advantage that light rail has over buses, rapid or otherwise, is often unspoken. The fact of the matter is that, for whatever reason, riding the bus is viewed as something poor people do.
Lots of people who have no trouble taking a commuter train or subway or light rail or biking simply won’t ride a bus because of the unspoken assumption that it’s “beneath them.”
It’s stupid, but then again so are a lot of other markers of social class.
why is it that they can pull this off in brazil, but not here?
from urbanhabitat.org:
“Curitiba’s Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit”
“Bus systems provide a versatile form of public transportation with the flexibility to serve a variety of access needs and unlimited range of locations throughout a metropolitan area. Buses also travel on urban roadways, so infrastructure investments can be substantially lower than the capital costs required for rail systems. As a result, bus service can be implemented cost-effectively on many routes. Yet, despite the inherent advantages of a bus service, conventional urban buses inching their way through congested streets don’t win much political support. The essence of a Bus Rapid Transit is to improve bus operating speed and reliability on arterial streets by reducing or eliminating the various types of delay.
The bus system of Curitiba, Brazil, exemplifies a model Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, and plays a large part in making this a livable city. The buses run frequently—some as often as every 90 seconds—and reliably, and the stations are convenient, well-designed, comfortable, and attractive. Consequently, Curitiba has one of the most heavily used, yet low-cost, transit systems in the world. It offers many of the features of a subway system—vehicle movements unimpeded by traffic signals and congestion, fare collection prior to boarding, quick passenger loading and unloading—but it is above ground and visible. Around 70 percent of Curitiba’s commuters use the BRT to travel to work, resulting in congestion-free streets and pollution-free air for the 2.2 million inhabitants of greater Curitiba.”
Corydon: even if the class/race associations with bus travel were removed, there’s still the hard fact that bus travel is and will pretty much always be less comfortable than rail. Busses are smaller, so inevitably there’s more contention for seats, and fewer (or no) places to put baggage. They’re narrower, so even with the same number of people you’re pressed against them more often, and navigating to a seat is more difficult. And an incompetent bus driver is much more likely to make the bus lurch into a stop or start, dumping people into each other.
I would have to second Fnarf’s comment about Metrobus in Mexico City. It is fast, efficient, busy AND is the preferred choice by the office workers of that city (there is a subway line that runs under part of the route Fnarf mentioned).
At some point, Americans will have to learn how to use these mass transit systems. Unfortunately, we are destined to continue to debate these issues until fuel prices are high enough (and maybe too late to make a difference??). Until then we will be left behind by the many fantastic, civilized transit systems in Latin America.
@Fnarf: The trole system in Quito is similar and made a believer of me, too. Amazingly effective.
@6,
There’s also no guarantee of a decent amount of time to get to a seat before the bus starts moving. The lightrail doors stay open for x number of seconds, and the train speeds up smoothly, so it’s usually not that big of a deal if you can’t make it to your seat right away. MANY times on the bus I’ve almost fallen on my ass because the bus driver didn’t care to wait for passengers to find a seat or handhold before starting up. It’s especially fun when the passenger has his/her hands full, the driver knows it, and the driver still refuses to wait. It’s amazing that Metro hasn’t been sued a hundred times over. Or maybe it is, and we just don’t hear about it.
Also, incompetent drivers or not, the bus sways and lurches far more than rail ever could. Combined with Metro’s seats that are situated way too high for anyone other than tall men, it’s a very uncomfortable mode of transportation.
@9: “…way too high for anyone other than tall men“
And too close together for tall men.
Light rail — when done in a city that isn’t populated by a bunch of greedy landowners, corrupt politicians and less than educated planners, is phenomenally cheap.
Cities such as Baltimore and San Diego (big names in the city biz) have created light rail for $10 to $20 million per mile. Contrast that with the boondoggle known as LINK that costs on average $179 million per mile — a whole power of 10 higher!
So, these arguments typically devolve into whose “System” is best. The answer — is neither. If the Powers That Be want to warp it from the best and most efficient engineering to something that serves only the very few, they will do so.
They have done so.
I wonder if I-90 will be a perpetual parking lot once tolling on the 520 bridge goes into effect. If so, maybe 520 would be a more reasonable path for these buses.
Dedicated lanes are part of the bargain of BRT. I do think that, due to the variety of destinations, BRT service is the best option for any lines crossing 520 (if they were to do the smart thing and have lanes for it on the new bridge, that is), but I-90 would be best served by light rail or a mix of LR and BRT.
No dedicated lanes means you can take the R out of BRT. If it is not BRT, it is stuck in traffic with the rest of the commuters. Ugh!
I thought that was why the Max and Maxine were so great in Portland. They don’t have their own lanes everywhere but every car knows they have to get out of the way or get run over and they automatically get the go signal every time they approach a light. (I may be mistaken though)
Someone pinch me, I think Bailo said something sensible and possibly (citation needed) even fact-based. Did someone hack his account? Is it opposite day?
Is this true about Baltimore and San Diego’s costs? If so, why was ours more?
So Goldy why no comment on what the Massachuttes Democrats did to Unions? its been a few days now.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-28/ne…
@16: The tunnels. And the tunnels. Did I mention the tunnels?
Oh, and a few fancy pieces of elevated structure, for good measure.
The long-ass walk through the parking garage at the airport was a contribution from the Port of Seattle.
@3, @5, @7, @8:
Latin American cities have a high enough rate of transit dependency to create the political will to do Bus Rapid Transit right.
U.S. cities do not have that constituency. Thus the “water it down ’til it’s meaningless” phenomenon seen, without exception, in this country (with no better example than our coming RapidRide).
Goldy’s right: you have to plan a system from the outset that can’t be rendered useless by the cheapskates.
Joe,
on the San Diego cost – it was true of the first line. There was an existing heavy rail (freight) line that had low use. It was electrified and had stations added in the 1980s. Huge ridership at very low cost (and freight now runs during a 4-hour window at night when the light rail is not in service). If you look at the newer lines (Green Line to Mission Valley) the cost is similar to Link. Much of it is elevated, one tunnel stop. What you have to have for cheap light rail is existing rail to start with.