# MISC | Bus Rapid Transit



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

*BRT: fare-paid loading, or not - that is the question*

*BRT: fare-paid all-door loading, or not - that is the question*

For those few of you who have experienced: 


the full-package BRTs (busways, fare-paid stations with all-door level boarding. etc)
and 

the halfway-to-BRT express busses with busways and bus stops (ie. you still queue get on the bus and pay at a farebox on the bus) 


What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? 

Personally I'm strongly in favour of the first, but am stumped as to why it hasn't really happened in North America - it seems faster, allows faster access for the disabled, etc)... Most existing systems considerd "BRT" in North America seem to have glorified bus stops with fare-collection on the bus. It's so much slower than what I've seen elsewhere....and I don't get _why_ they chose to not use proper stations.

Bus transit only folks, not looking to wade into any other discussions.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Full-featured BRT has happened in Los Angeles with the Orange Line:














































The success of the Orange Line can be gauged by the amount of venom that the Light Rail Now organization has been spitting at it:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm

The sad truth is that many cities are now claiming bus systems to be BRT that have little in common with the Orange Line other than buses with fancy paint jobs.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Excuse me! The original question regarded off-vehicle fare payment. Yes, that is the only way to go! One of the worst parts of any bus ride is fumbling around for change while holding up a line of people at the door. I've experienced the same issue on the light rail Green Line in Boston. Back when I lived in Boston, fare payment on the light rail lines was at the station entrance in the downtown subway but was onboard the vehicles along the above ground outer ends of the system.

The ultimate solution is the use of proximity cards such as the Octopus Card system used in Hong Kong.










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_card

With proximity cards, it doesn't matter so much whether the fare is collected onboard the vehicle or at the station.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Thanks for your feedback Christine.. 

I don't know much about the Orange Line at all and am eager to learn about it how has it gone over with the public.

How are fares regulated? Are there random on-board spot checks to make sure people getting on have valid passes?


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

greg_christine said:


> Excuse me! The original question regarded off-vehicle fare payment. Yes, that is the only way to go!
> 
> The ultimate solution is the use of proximity cards such as the Octopus Card system used in Hong Kong.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_card
> With proximity cards, it doesn't matter so much whether the fare is collected onboard the vehicle or at the station.




How does the proximity card work?


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

You prepay a cash denomination for fare onto the Octopus Card. To pay for fare you simply bring the card in close proximity to a card reader. You do not even need to take the card out of your pocket / purse / wallet. As you wave the card above the reader, it will automatically deduct the fare. The card is totally refillable. (In HK it can often be used instead of cash to purchase things such as food items, movie tickets, parking, etc.)


----------



## FallenGuard (Nov 2, 2006)

^^ The Danger with these Electronic Cards is that they make you traceable. I don't know how it is in Japan, but here, i'd rather not have such a system while Politicians drool over new ways to "catch terrorists" i.e. snoop in their Citizens Lives again.

This being said, I have to live with the Second System - usually once per week some old Lady holds up the whole Bus because she's fumbling for her spare Money and counting every cent. Bus Drivers often get so annoyed that they tell her to just get on Board and forget about the Fee.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

In Paris those informations are deleted all the 48 hours.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

minato ku said:


> In Paris those informations are deleted all the 48 hours.



Gullible.




The reason why you don't often find it is because it adds quite a bit of expense to make a secure station so that people can't sneak in without paying. The whole point of BRT is for cost savings - building full stations adds a significant part of the cost. As Greg-Christine pointed out, there are some light rail lines that use on board payment. It does slow things down sometimes, but it also simplifies things greatly.

We are seeing more and more electronic card access systems. But you still have to get a card. Works fine if everyone who rides your system is a regular rider, but vending machines are fraught with security issues, maintenance, problems with usage, susceptibility to vandalism, etc. All of these has some major negative effects to the image of public transit. Lastly, there is that ever present issue of identityespecially with the growing concern over customer tracking and sharing of personal data.


----------



## Richard Mlynarik (Apr 14, 2006)

greg_christine said:


> Excuse me! The original question regarded off-vehicle fare payment. Yes, that is the only way to go![...]


That's right.


greg_christine said:


> The ultimate solution is the use of proximity cards such as the Octopus Card system used in Hong Kong.


That's completely wrong.

Outside of truly crush-loaded metros (where sufficiently effective fare inspection is a practical impossibility,
and where limited access points make expensive fixed fare barriers of _possible_ value),
the "ultimate" system -- where total system cost of operation is accurately accounted
and where a priority is given to efficient movement of vehicles and passengers --
is barrier-free, random-inspection, proof-of-payment with 100% off-vehicle ticket sales,
combined with a tariff which encourages a very large fraction of riders to use season tickets.

Note that also increases bus operational efficiency by not causing any boarding/alighting
delay to tag smartcards, while not involving expensive and intrusive gated-off fare-paid "stations" on urban streets.


greg_christine said:


> With proximity cards, it doesn't matter so much whether the fare is collected onboard the vehicle or at the station.


The primary beneficiary of smartcard systems are the people selling smartcard systems.

Of note is that Switzerland -- a country with some record of success in efficient transportation operation
-- evaluated and then _abandoned_ a smartcard ticketing system a few years ago
because it was determined that it provided a negative return on investment.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

FallenGuard said:


> - usually once per week some old Lady holds up the whole Bus because she's fumbling for her spare Money and counting every cent. Bus Drivers often get so annoyed that they tell her to just get on Board and forget about the Fee.



Ugh same here - We have tons of seniors around, so part of why I'd give anything to have fare-paid loading, while they're at it put the station on a platform - those same seniors are so often painfully slow getting up the step into the bus!


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> Gullible.
> 
> The reason why you don't often find it is because it adds quite a bit of expense to make a secure station so that people can't sneak in without paying. The whole point of BRT is for cost savings - building full stations adds a significant part of the cost. As Greg-Christine pointed out, there are some light rail lines that use on board payment. It does slow things down sometimes, but it also simplifies things greatly.
> 
> We are seeing more and more electronic card access systems. But you still have to get a card. Works fine if everyone who rides your system is a regular rider, but vending machines are fraught with security issues, maintenance, problems with usage, susceptibility to vandalism, etc. All of these has some major negative effects to the image of public transit. Lastly, there is that ever present issue of identityespecially with the growing concern over customer tracking and sharing of personal data.


Ok so maybe e-cards isn't the way to go... but regardless of whether you stick it on the bus or at a station, you still need a farebox... do rails and turnstiles really add that much to the cost of a station? I can see them costing maybe 3x.... which when you are dealing with limited stations (ie BRT doesn't stop every block) doesn't seem to bad (ie one-time capital cost) ans possibly make or break the experience for riders by getting on the system that much faster (big deal when you've got 20 people queuing for one bus with gran holding everyone up). 

In some systems payment is on the honours system and there are staff who randomly check to see that passengers have actually purchased their fare...


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

adrimm said:


> Ugh same here - We have tons of seniors around, so part of why I'd give anything to have fare-paid loading, while they're at it put the station on a platform - those same seniors are so often painfully slow getting up the step into the bus!


What makes you think that by using a smart card or any kind of system like that is going to speed things up? If they can't figure out their change, they sure as heck aren't going to figure out using some convoluted card system - you will have everyone tied up (*cough*Boston*cough*). And half of those people who are not getting their change ready are just trying to beat the system - and they will pull the same thing with not finding their card, and not getting their card to work.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

I'd like to make a few comments regarding proximity cards:

1. The Washington Metro is presently transitioning from the use of magnetic strip cards for fare payment to proximity cards. I recently purchased my first proximity card at a Metro station because the parking garages now require the proximity cards for payment. My understanding is that the Washington bus system will use the same proximity cards. I believe this is the first time that the Metro and the buses will have a common fare payment system.










2. I purchased my Washington Metro proximity card using cash. It is not linked to a credit card or bank account. It does not contain any personal identification information.

3. The proximity cards only have to be held within about an inch of the sensor in order to deduct the fare. It is not even necessary to take them out of your wallet as you can just waive your wallet past the sensor. There should be no doubt that this is quicker than taking change out of your wallet to pay a transit fare. The proximity cards are even faster to use than the magnetic strip cards that previously were the only fare payment system used on the Washington Metro.

4. Even with the Octopus Cards used in Hong Kong, there is an option to purchase an "On-Loan" Octopus Card, which carries no personal identification information. There are also "Personalized" Octopus Cards that can carry a photo of the owner and can be used as an identification card. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_card >

5. The Octopus Card system in Hong Kong has gone well beyond being just a transit payment system. It can be used as a payment card for parking, a payment card for convenience stores, a library card, or an access card for secure buildings. According to the Wikipedia article, 95% of the population of Hong Kong now uses them.

6. In the United States, I now see oil companies switching their gasoline credit cards to proximity cards. Many gas pumps now are equipped to read both credit cards with magnetic strips and proximity cards. (An interesting question is what happens if you waive your wallet past a proximity card sensor and your wallet contains multiple proximity cards?)

7. The one thing that bothers me about proximity cards is not the privacy issue but how "spendy" they are. By watching the coins and dollar bills disappear from your wallet, you have a good visual representation of how fast you are spending your money. You don't get any such visual representation of your diminishing wealth when using a proximity card.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Kind of interesting, cause in the Toronto area we have both. The TTC runs the second one you mentioned along corridors where they plan on building future subway lines, while York Region runs the first (though neither have their own lane ways). YRT's service is MUCH better than the TTC's. Having to make all the passengers pay on the bus really does slow down the service. In fact, it probably isn't fair to refer to TTC Rocket routes as "BRT" and more just express buses, since their stops nor the buses themselves are no different than any other TTC route.

However, off-bus payment can have its disadvantages as well. Many times passengers are too technically illiterate to figure out how to use the fare machines (you'd be surprised how many people can't seem to read the sign saying "Please press screen to start"), and if you aren't using tickets or passes then you can miss your bus while the fare machine is printing your fare receipt (required in case an inspector wants to make sure you have paid). Also, here in York Region we currently put our tickets inside a "ticket validator" which prints off the time you paid your fare. Unfortunately these machines regularly have problems and sometimes do not print the time at all, and a noob to BRT may not realize you have to validate your ticket. Granted these ticket issues could be resolved if they switched to a card system that is shown above.

Despite its flaws, off bus payment is still the way to go.


----------



## busdriver (Jan 26, 2006)

Your best case study would be in central London, where both methods of fare collection are used. Trunk lines use off-bus ticketing/smartcard validation method with articulated, multiple door buses, while other lines use the more familiar pay/validate on-board with driver method.

My personal observations finds that the proof of payment buses doesnt really shave all that much off stop times. Although the bottleneck at the front is gone, the lack of manuvering space inside the bus and the distance between doors means getting on/off is still a time consuming process. On the other hand, the number of fare dodgers have certainly increased dramatically to the point where these bus lines are considered "free" by many.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> What makes you think that by using a smart card or any kind of system like that is going to speed things up? If they can't figure out their change, they sure as heck aren't going to figure out using some convoluted card system - you will have everyone tied up (*cough*Boston*cough*). And half of those people who are not getting their change ready are just trying to beat the system - and they will pull the same thing with not finding their card, and not getting their card to work.


Well I'm not saying a card is *the* specific answer - I'm happy with any solution that gets people to pay *before* they get on the bus so that there can be all-door-loading. 

It might be a smart card or it might be a station with a turnstile...

I've seen all-door loading onto BRT buses (articulated buses with 3 or 4 sets of doors), and it seem much much faster than forcing everyone to queue into one door. Oh and the loading platforms are level with the bus height - it's like stepping into the Tube or a metro, except that once you pull away it is clear that you are on a giant bus.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

But by the time you make a station that is secure, you will have eaten away at most of BRT's cost advantage. And that's the real point to a BRT - the cost.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Cloudship said:


> But by the time you make a station that is secure, you will have eaten away at most of BRT's cost advantage. And that's the real point to a BRT - the cost.


In York Region, we have security hop on and off the buses that issue fines for people who have not paid their fare. I always pay, though there is always a part of me which is afraid my ticket didn't validate properly (which happened once, fortunately I didn't run into a security guard that day) or that it fell out of my pocket or got misplaced, etc.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Cloudship said:


> But by the time you make a station that is secure, you will have eaten away at most of BRT's cost advantage. And that's the real point to a BRT - the cost.


I'm assuming you mean cost advantage over something like an LRT? My understanding is that once you get into LRT-land, the cars and track are momentously expensive, stations are only a part of the expense equation, and as Electrify points out they don't need to be secure. 

In North America it seems that getting many people to use mass-transit (and lower their emmisions, help clear congestion) is basically a competition between how the benefits and costs of SOV with the benefits and costs of mass-transit, as they borne by individual users (time, cost, ease of use). BRT. It's not like most people don't have cars (in Canada and the US).

What about the benefits of a system that attracts more riders and gets better use - the same system that contributes to clearing the air and reducing congestion? At what point does a little more expendiure on capital infrastructure (still not to the point of LRT) become warranted becasue it makes using the system that much more attractive to riders?

IMHO, The faster you can make it work (between loading times, triggered lights, attactive stations), the more attractive it will be to someone who might just as easily hop in their vehicle.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

greg_christine said:


> I'd like to make a few comments regarding proximity cards:
> 
> 1. The Washington Metro is presently transitioning from the use of magnetic strip cards for fare payment to proximity cards. I recently purchased my first proximity card at a Metro station because the parking garages now require the proximity cards for payment. My understanding is that the Washington bus system will use the same proximity cards. I believe this is the first time that the Metro and the buses will have a common fare payment system.
> 
> ...



That's very cool - I like that it is short range and is something that you can buy - like a phone calling card. 

I also think that the common fare paytment is essential in any city - All modes of public transit should be on the same payment system/validation system.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

^^


Electrify said:


> Kind of interesting, cause in the Toronto area we have both. The TTC runs the second one you mentioned along corridors where they plan on building future subway lines, while York Region runs the first (though neither have their own lane ways). YRT's service is MUCH better than the TTC's. Having to make all the passengers pay on the bus really does slow down the service. In fact, it probably isn't fair to refer to TTC Rocket routes as "BRT" and more just express buses, since their stops nor the buses themselves are no different than any other TTC route.
> 
> However, off-bus payment can have its disadvantages as well. Many times passengers are too technically illiterate to figure out how to use the fare machines (you'd be surprised how many people can't seem to read the sign saying "Please press screen to start"), and if you aren't using tickets or passes then you can miss your bus while the fare machine is printing your fare receipt (required in case an inspector wants to make sure you have paid). Also, here in York Region we currently put our tickets inside a "ticket validator" which prints off the time you paid your fare. Unfortunately these machines regularly have problems and sometimes do not print the time at all, and a noob to BRT may not realize you have to validate your ticket. Granted these ticket issues could be resolved if they switched to a card system that is shown above.
> 
> Despite its flaws, off bus payment is still the way to go.


Ahh, interesting both systems used in the same city. My hometown is considering the rapid bus/BRT model as possible step (in some decades) to an LRT - But I like the subway idea _way_ better tho - may as well dream big .


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

adrimm said:


> I'm assuming you mean cost advantage over something like an LRT? My understanding is that once you get into LRT-land, the cars and track are momentously expensive, stations are only a part of the expense equation, and as Electrify points out they don't need to be secure.
> 
> In North America it seems that getting many people to use mass-transit (and lower their emmisions, help clear congestion) is basically a competition between how the benefits and costs of SOV with the benefits and costs of mass-transit, as they borne by individual users (time, cost, ease of use). BRT. It's not like most people don't have cars (in Canada and the US).
> 
> ...


The problem is, no BRT system in the US has ever really shown to be any more attractive than a regular bus system. And as you pointed out, the faster you make it work, the more attractive it is. But here, most people unless you are deep within a city use the bus system regularly enough that a car system will be attractive to a vast majority of the passengers. Instead, people are going to end up having to purchase a card every time they ride, and they consider that part of their trip time. It actually slows down the perceived speed. 

In the US, any mass transit system is already starting at a disadvantage in most places. You can't expect people to go to a further inconvenience to start using it. While I understand how nice it would be to have all these extra features, you have to start off simple in order to get up and running. Perhaps this is why I have such an issue with BRT. The real advantages come from complex technology, which in the end usually ends up making other things worse down the line, either from inconvenience to the passengers or to the non-using public. And if you can't win over that non-using public, you are never even going to get yourself built.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

So why limit yourself to the US? There are cities in the world where BRT is taking on a far larger proportion of bus passengers than anticipated, to the point where regular bus routes have been cut far more severely than expected due to the lower ridership. What elements make that happen? Why not try to replicate that?

I'm not clear on your third sentence... "people using the bus regularly enough that a car is attractive to the majority"...Can you clarify?

In terms of advantages and disadvantages, I think the Canadian situation might be a little different, car-commuting is more expensive (due to higher gasoline prices), we're already a bit more predisposed to use other modes (transit, cycling) just for cost-saving. But I'm not clear how something like a BRT would be a further inconvenience beyond regular transit.. imho it would be an improvement to regular transit, make transit use more convenient (perhaps I'm mis-reading you?).

I'm not at all convinced that people purchaseing a ticket, validating a ticket, or swiping a pass on farebox while waiting for the bus to arrive would consider it a slow-down especially if it lets them board it in a few seconds (vs everyone queuing to get on one door and pay at one farebox on the bus, while granny sorts through her change or gets her walker on the bus.).. I also get that cost plays in, but fare-paid all-door boarding seems like a pretty petty cost increase for the results. 



Cloudship said:


> The problem is, no BRT system in the US has ever really shown to be any more attractive than a regular bus system. And as you pointed out, the faster you make it work, the more attractive it is. But here, most people unless you are deep within a city use the bus system regularly enough that a car system will be attractive to a vast majority of the passengers. Instead, people are going to end up having to purchase a card every time they ride, and they consider that part of their trip time. It actually slows down the perceived speed.
> 
> In the US, any mass transit system is already starting at a disadvantage in most places. You can't expect people to go to a further inconvenience to start using it. While I understand how nice it would be to have all these extra features, you have to start off simple in order to get up and running. Perhaps this is why I have such an issue with BRT. The real advantages come from complex technology, which in the end usually ends up making other things worse down the line, either from inconvenience to the passengers or to the non-using public. And if you can't win over that non-using public, you are never even going to get yourself built.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Sorry. That sentence shoud read "But here, most people_,_ unless you are deep within a city, _don't_ use the bus system regularly enough that a car_d_ system will be attractive to a vast majority of the passengers.". Sorry, I must have been one something when I was typing that.

But getting back to your point, first most measurements of the "success" of BRT are measured against regular bus service, not against other transit modes. But in many cases BRT are not meant to upgrade existing busses, but as an alternative to light rail. And that's where the inconvenience comes in - you are still running road vehicles. They get stuck in traffic if they run normally, and they interrupt traffic if they get prioritization. Compared to a regular bus, there is more need for overhead wires and bus stations and such, but they don't draw in anywhere near the number of riders (again, in the US) that light rail would. You still have to deal with drivers and accidents. 

Another thing that you are assuming is that you are going to have a hoarde of people boarding just once, who all know what they are doing and are all prepared. In many systems, you only have one or two people boarding at a time - it's only the larger stations that you have that many people getting on. And in those cases you usually are justified in making the step up to light rail. You are also assuming that everyone is going to know exactly what they are supposed to do getting the ticket - not start to climb on board, discover you need to get a ticket at the station, and then have to fight your way back out though the line of people waiting to get on. Not every person uses public transit every day. And honestly it shouldn't just focus on those people to begin with. 

Theoretically, yes it makes sense. But people live in teh real world, and if the solution doesn't work in the real world, then it simply won't get used.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Cloudship said:


> Sorry. That sentence shoud read "But here, most people_,_ unless you are deep within a city, _don't_ use the bus system regularly enough that a car_d_ system will be attractive to a vast majority of the passengers.". Sorry, I must have been one something when I was typing that.
> 
> But getting back to your point, first most measurements of the "success" of BRT are measured against regular bus service, not against other transit modes. But in many cases BRT are not meant to upgrade existing busses, but as an alternative to light rail. And that's where the inconvenience comes in - you are still running road vehicles. They get stuck in traffic if they run normally, and they interrupt traffic if they get prioritization. Compared to a regular bus, there is more need for overhead wires and bus stations and such, but they don't draw in anywhere near the number of riders (again, in the US) that light rail would. You still have to deal with drivers and accidents.
> 
> ...


I've seen numbers that show BRT service approaching that of LRT. Also "real" BRT does not suffer from those examples you mentioned. It runs in its own dedicated busway barriered off from traffic, and LRT would get traffic priorities as well. And just LRT, BRT can have its own dedicated corridors with no traffic whatsoever to deal with (ie: LA's Orange route). I think when people realize how fast BRT can be in more developed areas when done correctly, the image that "buses are for poor people" will drift away.

As for your ticket purchase point, I know what you are talking about. I once overheard a story of a girl when asked to show her fare, showed her ticket book not realizing she had to validate, and of course received a $130 fine (great way to treat new customers, eh?). But what is stopping a similar scenario from happening at an at grade LRT stop??? Also in Curitiba, their BRT has full stations which you cannot access unless you pay your fare (and the same strategy could be used on LRT as well).


----------



## Tancred (Dec 18, 2003)

Electrify said:


> I've seen numbers that show BRT service approaching that of LRT. Also "real" BRT does not suffer from those examples you mentioned. It runs in its own dedicated busway barriered off from traffic, and LRT would get traffic priorities as well. And just LRT, BRT can have its own dedicated corridors with no traffic whatsoever to deal with (ie: LA's Orange route). I think when people realize how fast BRT can be in more developed areas when done correctly, the image that "buses are for poor people" will drift away.


I would be very interested to hear what cities have "real" BRT. In my experience BRT is a way to save money, while not providing LRT levels of service. I'm yet to see BRT run as fast as light Rail can. Having ridden on several guided bus systems i'm yet to see how they are *any* faster. In fact, I would go so far as to say that some guided busways run slower than if the bus was running on a normal (but empty) road.

I'm yet to see BTR that is as easy for people in wheelchair's to use. The buses are still narrow, and not the wide vehicles light rail can offer. Where there are elevated stops provided for buses the drivers cannot be expected to be as close to the "platform" everystop, where as light rail will be at the some distance, everytime. A gap of 8-10cm is not a problem for most people, but try getting across that with a wheelchair.

I'm yet to see a bus that offers anything close to the room (and loading capacity) of modern light rail. 

Buses have their place in an intergrated transport system. Light rail requires a level of population density higher than that required to support a decent bus system, but in my experience a bus system cannot delivery the level of service a light rail system delivers.


----------



## Bogota (Feb 20, 2005)

Bogota is an example of a city with a full BRT system. Although still in its early stages (just 30% of the city is covered by now) by 2015 it will have 400 kms of separate bus lanes and stations that will transport over 5 million pax a day. 

The secret of success for the Bogota Transmilenio system, as it is called, is the metro style working system such as several integrated lines, non contact cards at entrance to pay for access to all they system, fully wheelchair accesible with ramps into elevated stations and no steps in buses, sliding glass doors that open at stations directly into the four large access doors of the double length buses, satelite controlled timings for the buses and intermediate bus depots for deployment of extra buses in city centre in the city for peak times. 

The first line opened in 2000 and by now over 1.3 million pax travel in the system a day. Other very good things about our BRT are having express buses that stop at certain stations only allowing pax that travel the city´s length not to have and endure but a few stops through the city. Most stations will have a different express bus stopping allowing pax multiple ways to cross the city fast, and buses change lines enableling pax to stay on board their transport all the way home without having to walk to change lines. 


















This is the link to the city´s TM site: 

http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/transmilenio/home_english.htm

http://www.surumbo.com/index2.php3?...ansmilenio.gov.co/transmilenio/nvaentrada.htm

This is the link to the SCC thread on Transmilenio (sorry it is in Spanish but a few interesting pictures):

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=422306


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Tancred said:


> I would be very interested to hear what cities have "real" BRT. In my experience BRT is a way to save money, while not providing LRT levels of service. I'm yet to see BRT run as fast as light Rail can. Having ridden on several guided bus systems i'm yet to see how they are *any* faster. In fact, I would go so far as to say that some guided busways run slower than if the bus was running on a normal (but empty) road.
> 
> I'm yet to see BTR that is as easy for people in wheelchair's to use. The buses are still narrow, and not the wide vehicles light rail can offer. Where there are elevated stops provided for buses the drivers cannot be expected to be as close to the "platform" everystop, where as light rail will be at the some distance, everytime. A gap of 8-10cm is not a problem for most people, but try getting across that with a wheelchair.
> 
> ...


Can you show me a LRT moving quickly through an inner city (without having to tunnel the line). Virtually every video I've seen of a LRT system working in an inner urban area shows it toddling along barely any faster than a streetcar, even with its own dedicated lane. I take the bus on a regular basis, and I know that even between short stops buses tend to accelerate and break at a comparable speed to cars. BRT may not be quite as fast as LRT in areas where they can build its own private corridor, but it is quite capable.

Here is a video of a BRT flying through inner city/suburban traffic (notice how quickly it breaks and accelerates).





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcSgdGqQEOQ

Here is a BRT on its own private corridor reaching LRT quality speeds (92km/h).





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iadkSGE0tqs

EDIT: Did they remove the YouTube feature??? All I get is white now.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Electrify said:


> I've seen numbers that show BRT service approaching that of LRT. Also "real" BRT does not suffer from those examples you mentioned. It runs in its own dedicated busway barriered off from traffic, and LRT would get traffic priorities as well. And just LRT, BRT can have its own dedicated corridors with no traffic whatsoever to deal with (ie: LA's Orange route). I think when people realize how fast BRT can be in more developed areas when done correctly, the image that "buses are for poor people" will drift away.
> 
> As for your ticket purchase point, I know what you are talking about. I once overheard a story of a girl when asked to show her fare, showed her ticket book not realizing she had to validate, and of course received a $130 fine (great way to treat new customers, eh?). But what is stopping a similar scenario from happening at an at grade LRT stop??? Also in Curitiba, their BRT has full stations which you cannot access unless you pay your fare (and the same strategy could be used on LRT as well).


I guess I am not getting your point. To me, the discussion is: what is better - pay as you board, pay by an electronic card, or have a controlled entry station. As you describe above, it is a controlled entry station. My comment to that is that in many (most?) areas, the cost of building a dedicated busway with controlled stations that people cannot easily sneak into ends up being close to the cost of a regular transit system. While there are a few cases of such a system, most BRT is basically a bus with advanced ticketing and traffic priority. You are right that LRT and Busses face the same exact problem - fare collection I do not think is something that differs between the two.

Electrify- sorry I can't see your videos. So, I am going to have to go based on experience here. I can easily find places where a bus moves along at a fast clip - those are usually low density areas or areas where there are few obstacles, few stops, and no traffic. Some of those locations might actually be better served by Busses, ads the density may not be there. But in deeper cities I certainly hope that my bus isn't moving that fast. Yes I have seen them do that. I have also seen them in some pretty bad traffic accidents. We could always speed our LRT up, but will we live with that level of safety concern? If you want to see better speeds, perhaps look to places such as Boston's Green Line, which in some places is able to run much faster. Of course, your top speed is going to depend a lot upon how close your stations or stops are.There is a big appearance of speed, too. Look at the size comparison. The longer light rail vehicles appear to be moving much slower from the outside. Ironically get inside and I bet you feel very differently.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

There's Melbourne's horribly ineffective system that's used on trams (and the Stony Point line) which is about to be phased out: put ticket vending machines inside every single vehicle and hope that everyone travels with a valid ticket.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

*Numbers to support the need for fare-paid all door boarding*

Figures that support the difference that fare-paid all door boarding makes:

From the Guangzhou BRT project: http://www.gzbrt.org/en/stations.asp



> *The importance of BRT station design*
> The key to the success of TransMilenio in Bogota (see video here and here) is a station design that allows high volumes of buses and passengers to pass at high speeds. Station design will also be one of the keys to the success of the Guangzhou BRT. The station designs presented in this study ensure both adequate passenger waiting space and that operational speeds of at least 26 km/hr can be maintained throughout the Guangzhou BRT corridor.
> 
> *Station spacing*
> ...


What a wealth of information on that site!


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)




----------



## milwaukee-københavn (Jun 21, 2006)

*The Bus Rapid Transit Thread*

Here in Milwaukee, it looks as if we're going to have to go with a BRT-type system if we want to get any transit improvements built. 

To that end, I'm interested in hearing about different BRT or even just higher-quality bus systems around the world. 

Post images, maps, facta, etc about bus rapid transit or higher-quality than normal bus service in your area and tell me what ou think about it. Has it really improved transit service in your city or has it just become another bus line?


Thanks for the help.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

milwaukee-københavn said:


> Here in Milwaukee, it looks as if we're going to have to go with a BRT-type system if we want to get any transit improvements built.


Why not light rail? 

If there is one US city that needs light rail that doesn’t have it, it’s Milwaukee. Even with all-bus, Milwaukee seems to have higher transit ridership per capita than many cities that have built light rail & several good potential rail corridors.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Is there a truley successful BRT system in the US? I know that Ottawa has a pretty good system, but for what it is, if you had to build it from scratch 
I bet it would cost more (both money and land wise) than a Light Rail or Monorail.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

The Orange Line in Los Angeles is the first fully featured BRT line in the United States. In this context, the term "fully featured" refers to having amenities similar to light rail such as:

- Right of way segregated from other traffic except at crossings of intersecting streets.
- Stations with canopied waiting areas.
- An off-vehicle fair payment system.


























The BRT Orange Line and the light rail Gold Line make for an interesting comparison:

Corridor
Gold Line LRT: Sierra Madre through Pasadena to Los Angeles Union Station with connections to MetroLink and Red Line
Orange Line BRT: Canoga Park through Van Nuys to North Hollywood Red Line Terminus

Route Length
Gold Line LRT: 13.7 miles
Orange Line BRT: 14 miles

Number of Stations
Gold Line LRT: 13
Orange Line BRT: 13

Opening Day
Gold Line LRT: July 26, 2003
Orange Line BRT: October 29, 2005

Average Weekday Boardings for 2006
Gold Line LRT: 18,735
Orange Line BRT: 23,243

Construction Cost
Gold Line LRT:$859 Million
Orange Line BRT: $330 Million

For more information, see the following websites:
http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/orangeline/images/ol_interactive.htm
http://thetransitcoalition.us/TTC_BRT_Orange.htm
http://www.metro.net/news_info/facts.htm


----------



## Nozumi 300 (Jan 10, 2007)

you should check out the Viva threads, just outside of toronto


----------



## SteveM (Mar 16, 2007)

One thing to note about the Gold Line/Orange Line comparison is that the Orange Line's corridor is about 40% more densly populated.

That's not to say the Orange Line isn't a success or the Gold Line didn't cost more than it should have. Just to note that there's a slight apples-to-oranges comarison going on here.


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

Edmonton will be building a BRT line from WEM to either University or Downtown. One or the other. Right now they are going to have presentations and meetings and the sort in the next couple weeks. I'll be going as the house I live in will be affected by this.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

SteveM said:


> One thing to note about the Gold Line/Orange Line comparison is that the Orange Line's corridor is about 40% more densly populated.
> 
> That's not to say the Orange Line isn't a success or the Gold Line didn't cost more than it should have. Just to note that there's a slight apples-to-oranges comarison going on here.


You probably saw that claim on the Light Rail Now website < http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm >. The actual claim is that the Orange Line serves "at least 40% more major activity centers than does the Gold Line". The website does not provide an explanation of what constitutes an activity center. I find the claim somewhat outrageous given that the Orange Line spans through a series of suburbs from Canoga Park to North Hollywood whereas the Gold Line passes through Pasadena and has its terminus at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles.

The Light Rail Now article does make some valid points regarding access for the handicapped and the ride comfort of the buses versus light rail but Light Rail Now neglects to mention the cost difference. The $330 million cost of the Orange Line is mentioned but the $859 million cost of the Gold Line is not.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 16, 2007)

I think I was actually looking at http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm, which claims the Orange Line has both a 42% greater population within .5 miles and 40% more "major activity centers", whatever that means. The site cites the census bureau as the source for the data; I don't know LA at all, so I don't have any context for whether this is a believable claim. 

At any rate, it appears (based on what I've read) that when BRT is built to emulate LRT (high-quality stations, dedicated right-of-way, etc.), it attracts passenger loads basically comparable to LRT. When BRT is built to be a glorified bus (see Boston's Silver Line phase 1), it attracts passenger loads basically comparable to a bus.


----------



## allurban (Apr 7, 2006)

*In Canada*
Ottawa has the two Transitway routes but other buses also use the transitway to get downtown.....so it is a combination...BRT system + busway.

VIVA (York Region north of Toronto) is not yet a BRT but is moving itself into the next stage...but there is a chance that some of the lines may jump to LRT instead of moving to BRT.

Toronto itself will have express buses operating in a category B ROW in 2-3 years but this wont make it BRT.

Mississauga (west of Toronto) is building a transitway with GO Transit but it is more like a busway than a BRT system.

Vancouver's B-Lines operate pretty frequently...they may be the best example from Canada....

*what else?*
Outside of that....Transjakarta (Jakarta), Transsantiago (Santiago de Chile), are recent examples. Bogata and Curitaba are the older classic examples of BRT.

Cheers, m


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

SteveM said:


> I think I was actually looking at http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm, which claims the Orange Line has both a 42% greater population within .5 miles and 40% more "major activity centers", whatever that means. The site cites the census bureau as the source for the data; I don't know LA at all, so I don't have any context for whether this is a believable claim.
> 
> At any rate, it appears (based on what I've read) that when BRT is built to emulate LRT (high-quality stations, dedicated right-of-way, etc.), it attracts passenger loads basically comparable to LRT. When BRT is built to be a glorified bus (see Boston's Silver Line phase 1), it attracts passenger loads basically comparable to a bus.


Prior to the opening of the Orange Line BRT, the official ridership projection was 5000-7000 passengers per day in the first year of operation. The Orange Line has far exceeded this. Prior to the opening of the Gold Line LRT, the official ridership projection was 26,000-32,000 passengers per day in the first year of operation. The Gold Line has fallen well short of this. I am not sure if the ridership projections accurately reflect the populations and numbers of activity centers in the given corridors or if the ridership numbers were simply cooked so that they were what they needed to be in order to justify the cost of the lines.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

For anyone who is interested, the following are some screen dumps from the LACMTA's website on the Orange Line:


















































To view the original presentation, please go to the following link:
http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/orangeline/images/ol_interactive.htm


----------



## kiku99 (Sep 17, 2002)

ooh, i didn't know that there is the BRT system in LA. interesting. Bangkok is also in the process of constructing a BRT route.


----------



## milwaukee-københavn (Jun 21, 2006)

bayviews said:


> Why not light rail?
> 
> If there is one US city that needs light rail that doesn’t have it, it’s Milwaukee. Even with all-bus, Milwaukee seems to have higher transit ridership per capita than many cities that have built light rail & several good potential rail corridors.


Milwaukee is a very dense city in population by American standards, it has pretty high transit ridership and include many potential rail corridors. What it lacks, however, is political will of any sense. Milwaukee's county exec, who controls transit, is fundamentally opposed to light rail and was once quoted as wishing to have 'a county where no one has to ride transit' (he's unique political fluke in a mainly socialist/democratic county). At least right now commuter rail might be built between Milwaukee and the suburbs to the north and south. And streetcars might soon run in downtown but only in a tourist sense.

Here's a map of the current bus plans for reference:










Re all of the responses so far, how would you rate your BRT-ish service? Does it rate up with light rail service or is it unplesant, etc?


----------



## LAist (May 26, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY0-1WMH_iA
A video on LA's Orange line.


----------



## LAist (May 26, 2007)

More images:


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

milwaukee-københavn said:


> ...
> Re all of the responses so far, how would you rate your BRT-ish service? Does it rate up with light rail service or is it unplesant, etc?


It is with much trepidation that I offer my opinion as I know that many light rail advocates will disagree with me. The most important factor for any transit system is travel time, which is a function of travel speed and station wait time. The Orange Line BRT and Gold Line LRT in Los Angeles offer similar overall travel times. As a consequence, they have produced similar levels of ridership.

If a BRT line is built to a high light rail standard with exclusive travel lanes and priority at traffic lights, it can achieve travel times similar to light rail and as a consequence will have ridership similar to light rail. Conversely, if a light rail line is built to a low streetcar standard with operation in lanes with mixed traffic, both the speed and the ridership are likely to be disappointing. The smoother ride of light rail vehicles and better accommodation for wheelchair passengers plus a fascination with trains among a small minority of the commuting public might produce a modest ridership advantage for light rail; however, it is debatable whether this advantage is commensurate with the greater cost of light rail.

For Milwaukee, light rail doesn't appear to be on the menu of options being discussed, so the issue seems purely academic.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

A BRT line recently opened in Eugene, Oregon:

http://www.ltd.org/search/showresult.html?versionthread=6eec24bb231297a66d73fb145404cef2










































Only about 60% of the EMX line in Eugene is in dedicated travel lanes. There are already plans underway to extend the route. The extensions would be similar to the original line with segments in both exclusive lanes and in mixed traffic lanes.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Wrote up a great reply last night, but when I clicked submit, I got an error that the server was under maintenance and when I clicked back my entire reply was gone :bleep: 

Anyways, BRT is much faster and versitile when used in urban areas where you cannot give its own private corridor and instead has its own ROW in the roadway. While articulated or double articulated buses race down the roadway, light rail usually crawls, especially on turns. The one pitfall with BRT is operating costs per passenger tend to be higher, since the vehicles cannot carry as many passengers. But you get what you pay for, since you can run more buses easier than LRT trains (less wait times) and you can install a new route on a parallel corridor to relieve pressure along a heavily used route much easier than you could with a LRT route (meaning closer to door service and improved ridership).

Here are some YouTube videos of both systems in urban areas:

BRT (Bogata, Columbia)






LRT (Portland, Oregon)*






EDIT: Changed it to one where you can see it straight on this forum

This is just to show LRT running through an urban area with lots of turns and near by stops. There are plenty of LRT videos of trains running on their own private corridors going just as fast, if not faster, than the BRT in Bogata. In fact, with LA the irony is that they run LRT through the middle of the road in many places, where it would be much better suited for BRT, and run BRT through its own private corridors, where it would be better suited for LRT. Still, when you look at the BRT's passenger numbers you can see it is a viable and attractive form of transit, especially when you consider that it runs from residential areas to the rail station, and not right into downtown like the LRT, and that it runs through an upper class area where most people could just drive themselves to the rail station to avoid the transfer.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> It is with much trepidation that I offer my opinion as I know that many light rail advocates will disagree with me. The most important factor for any transit system is travel time, which is a function of travel speed and station wait time. The Orange Line BRT and Gold Line LRT in Los Angeles offer similar overall travel times. As a consequence, they have produced similar levels of ridership.
> 
> If a BRT line is built to a high light rail standard with exclusive travel lanes and priority at traffic lights, it can achieve travel times similar to light rail and as a consequence will have ridership similar to light rail. Conversely, if a light rail line is built to a low streetcar standard with operation in lanes with mixed traffic, both the speed and the ridership are likely to be disappointing. The smoother ride of light rail vehicles and better accommodation for wheelchair passengers plus a fascination with trains among a small minority of the commuting public might produce a modest ridership advantage for light rail; however, it is debatable whether this advantage is commensurate with the greater cost of light rail.
> 
> For Milwaukee, light rail doesn't appear to be on the menu of options being discussed, so the issue seems purely academic.


But by the time that you have built your BRT to the high light rail standard, you no longer are dealing with a lower cost. That is where all the "savings" that BRT proponents come from, and when they do get built, the public finds out that indeed they have not gotten something that is equivalent to light rail standards.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

BRT doesn’t require a system of overhead wires and electrical substations. BRT doesn’t require steel rails. The asphalt that BRT does require is fairly cheap. The transit authority doesn’t even have to pay for the asphalt if it is part of an existing road. BRT stations don’t require a platform precisely aligned with the floor level of the buses as ramp systems are generally used for the boarding of wheelchair passengers. Returning to the example of the Gold Line LRT versus Orange Line BRT, the following are the construction cost numbers:

Orange Line BRT: $330 million
Gold Line LRT: $859 million

The above comparison might not be completely valid as two different corridors are involved. There are several studies that have looked at BRT and LRT in the same corridor. As might be expected, BRT is the cheaper option to build. The amazing thing is that most of these studies also find that BRT is cheaper to maintain and operate:


VANCOUVER - COQUITLAM/EVERGREEN LINE

- Capital Cost
Guided Buses: $285 Million
LRT: $670 Million

- Operations and Maintenance Costs per Passenger Boarding
Guided Buses: $4.10 /Passenger
Light Rail: $6.95 /Passenger


LAS VEGAS - HENDERSON TO NORTH LAS VEGAS

- Capital Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $700 Million
Light Rail: $1,115 Million

- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $218 Million/Year
Light Rail: $203 Million/Year


SAN JOSE - WARM SPRINGS BART CONNECTOR

- Capital Cost
Busway BRT: $1,155 Million
LRT: $1,514 Million

- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Busway BRT: $19.5 Million/Year
LRT: $41.8 Million/Year


NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA

- Capital Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $178 Million
Light Rail: $250 Million

- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $4.7 Million/Year
Light Rail: $9 Million/Year


SEATTLE - I-90 TRANS-LAKE WASHINGTON LINE

- Capital Cost
Rail Convertible BRT: $3.7 - $5.0 Billion
Light Rail: $4.6 - $6.2 Billion

- Operations & Maintenance Cost (Net change relative to common baseline)
Rail Convertible BRT: -$17.2 Million/Year
Light Rail: +$29.0 Million/Year


The source documents for the above information can be found on the Internet:

“Northeast Sector Rapid Transit Alternatives Project, Phase 2 - Evaluation of Rapid Transit Alternatives, Executive Summary”, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, March 31, 2004.

“Regional Fixed Guideway”, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, PowerPoint Presentations dated December 15, 2005 and January 19, 2006.

"Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor MIS/EIS/EIR, Major Investment Study (MIS) Final Report", Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), November 2001.

“Newport News Considers Light Rail”, Seth Freedland, Daily Press, September 28, 2006.

“Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update, Issue Paper E.1: I-90/East King County High Capacity Transit Analysis”, Sound Transit, March 2005.


----------



## milwaukee-københavn (Jun 21, 2006)

Are there any other cities that have brt-ish systems?


----------



## Nozumi 300 (Jan 10, 2007)

york region, canada has a nice system, though not fully brt yet


----------



## Yörch1 (Oct 31, 2006)

Mexico City has a BRT system too. It's called Metrobús.

It has 1 line that runs through 19.7 kilometers of Insurgentes Ave., and another line is being built nowadays.

Let's see some info:

Length: 19.7km
Terminals: 2
Stations: 34
Distance between stations: 550 meters
Passengers per day: 250,000
Passengers at peak hour: 7,300
Fleet: 97 Scania and Volvo buses 
Cost: 5.2 million dollar per kilometer










This is a terminal...









And this is a station...


















The bus...









And the bus interior...


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Then is it the same? You are still talking gasoline versus electric. That in itself is a huge issue, and even many buses use an overhead electrical system. But theirs need to be dual wire. And no, asphalt roadway isn't always cheaper than steel rail. Most people seem to think all there is to making a road is grading it flat and pouring down pavement. There's a lot of structure to a rod, and it covers a large amount of area. Not to mention frequent upkeep, issues with climate, and huge issues with runoff. Buses are not able to get any further away form the platform than a normal light rail would be able to, it's just hat light rail is easier to get those tight tolerances from. And lastly, if you are talking about using roads that are already there, you are taking away from existing transportation. No difference than would be to close it off for a couple of rail lines, except that bus lanes have to be wider and take up more road space.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Cloudship said:


> Then is it the same? You are still talking gasoline versus electric. That in itself is a huge issue, and even many buses use an overhead electrical system. But theirs need to be dual wire. And no, asphalt roadway isn't always cheaper than steel rail. Most people seem to think all there is to making a road is grading it flat and pouring down pavement. There's a lot of structure to a rod, and it covers a large amount of area. Not to mention frequent upkeep, issues with climate, and huge issues with runoff. Buses are not able to get any further away form the platform than a normal light rail would be able to, it's just hat light rail is easier to get those tight tolerances from. And lastly, if you are talking about using roads that are already there, you are taking away from existing transportation. No difference than would be to close it off for a couple of rail lines, except that bus lanes have to be wider and take up more road space.


Yes, but according to the sourced numbers, it is still cheaper maintenance than LRT. I can see LRT having cheaper cost per passenger, since one vehicle with one driver can move as many people as several buses and drivers.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Electrify said:


> Yes, but according to the sourced numbers, it is still cheaper maintenance than LRT. I can see LRT having cheaper cost per passenger, since one vehicle with one driver can move as many people as several buses and drivers.


I'd like to note that the numbers specified above for the VANCOUVER - COQUITLAM/EVERGREEN LINE are per passenger boarding:

- Operations and Maintenance Costs per Passenger Boarding
Guided Buses: $4.10 /Passenger
Light Rail: $6.95 /Passenger

Please understand that just because I am presenting these numbers does not mean that I am a big fan of buses. When I visit a city with a metro or light rail system, I'll often dedicate an afternoon to riding the trains. I've never done that for a bus line. Despite being a fan of trains, I think it is important to be realistic about the cost. It is also important to remember that transit lines are built for the general public, not just for rail fans.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

urbanfan89 said:


> Vancouver has three so-called BRT lines which are actually express buses. All of them are constantly jammed, and they're pushing forward with replacing all three with metro lines asap. BRT turned out as a failure in the inner core of Vancouver, as a half-baked solution to an urgent problem. But a genuine BRT network is planned to link suburbs with rail stations to improve dismal service
> 
> Toronto doesn't have any BRT lines except for VIVA, a glorified suburban bus system to lure suburban snobs onto buses. But many city bus routes have headways of 3 minutes, bus lanes, and express service. They could market those as BRT, but they don't. Many of those express bus routes are targeted for conversion to light rail in the next few years.
> 
> ...



I agree completely with urbanfan.

Bogota model = awesome, definitly a different something. It would work in my Canadian city.
typical Canadian model = glorified bus... I don't want it.

The problem with BRT is that the acronym "Bus Rapid Transit" is becoming a catchall "it" word that everyone is jumping on to describe their bus systems. It's sort of like the word "sustainable", which has now been rendered totally useless, becuase now suddenly everything can be sustainable. 

This is a huge problem for the BRT concept. The complete BRT systems, the ones like what Bogota (7 Million), and many other Latin American cities have, work exceptionally well.. but in North America, despite much lipservice to alternatives, most so-called BRT systems have only a few of the features actually required to make it work at highest potential... therefore everyone has a very different idea of what BRT is.

I personally was totally opposed to it until I rode the Bogota system.. which literally blew me away, it's fantastic (ok maybe the routeing information could be better)... they clearly looked at it from a metro/subway perspective rather than improved bus when developing it. Now I am careful to make a distinction between what most North Americans call BRT and a full BRT system, such as what they have in Bogota, etc.

Anyone using the word BRT should have to append the city that comes to mind so we all know what their perception of BRT is.

aka Vancouver-model-BRT (= express bus)
Bogota-model-BRT (yes is a BRT).

It should come as no surprise that anyone who thinks of the current Vancouver model would be unhappy with it, while anyone who thinks of Bogota model would be happy with it.

The thing that pains me is that despite a globalising world, North American transit planners can't seem to look beyond our continent when designing BRT systems.. however planners in other areas do.... and guess what? They are *not* looking to North America for BRT inspiration. Goungzhou in China, and other Asian cities are looking to the south american systems, South Africa is looking to the south american systems. With no thanks to hollywood, there is an arrogance that prevents the general public in North America from accepting that there can be very progressive ideas coming from developing countries. 

Although closed systems, turnstiles, etc all matter One of the most visible differences to me is in the stations, and this goes for any sort of rapid transit (rail or bus).. places that get winter and rains and unpleasant weather deserve a comfortable, enclosed professional looking environment. 

Proper stations not only add to the accessibility for the elderly (and think of how many baby boomers there will be relying on transit as they get too old to drive), strollers, and to the attractiveness of the system and indicate the commitment to the develpment community. You can tear out a bus shelter, but once you put half a million dollars into a station, it's probably going to say "I'm not going anywhere". The stations can give BRT systems permanence. Bogota **has** seen shopping centres & malls spring up next to stations. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA4IR7PvO6I


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

deasine said:


> BRT systems need to be exactly like metro systems in order to perform well.


Exactly.. think of a surface version of Paris's metro (which is run on rubber tires) but then you get the people jumping all over the cost points. 

This TRB report has a great graph comparing bang for buck with existing systems in North America. Page 36.. look at the ridership figures and the cost.

http://www.nbrti.org/media/documents/Bogota Report_Final Report_May 2006.pdf


Then look at costs for the Bogota copycat BRT in Periera. -. the primary costs in Bogota have been the massive portals or transfer stations that they have in the suburbs (they're massive). Periera with 500,000 people didn't need such expensive transfer portal systems that Bogota has so their system came out costing $ 2 million per km to build... and this is what it looks like:

[imgl]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1228/img1808rf5.jpg[/img]


----------



## canadave87 (Oct 8, 2007)

Well, Ottawa probably has the best BRT system in North America, and if you look at my Ottawa transit options thread in this forum, you can probably see that we now find ourselves struggling to replace it. It seemed like a great like idea when it was built, but now it's seen as a relic of the 1980s.

All that said, it is a good system, compared to most BRTs. The Transitway is grade separated with stations spaced-out fairly regularly. The major routes (the 95 and the 97) run with headways of 3-5 minutes during daytime hours, while the secondary routes (the 96 and the 101) run with headways of 15-20 minutes. Back door boarding is allowed on 60' buses, which are the majority running on the Transitway. The biggest problems are the fact that it becomes a surface route through downtown, in mixed traffic, slowing service, as well as the fact that station platforms are not POP zones.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Well, the Vancouver BRT's may not be as fancy as Bogota's but it does hold up with its ridership. One line sees 70,000 passengers daily, and the other 40,000.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

canadave87 said:


> \ The biggest problems are the fact that it becomes a surface route through downtown, in mixed traffic, slowing service, as well as the fact that station platforms are not POP zones.


Those are some pretty major gaps... to me open "BRT" systems entirely defeat the concept of BRT. How on earth is it going to be smooth-functioning when portions get clogged in with mixed traffic? It defeats the cost if the separate ways. Ditto for POP.. what's the point if fare-paid stations aren't across the system.

Stations.. well I've already blabbed on about those. Rapid Transit anything passengers (Bus or Rail), deserves proper enclosed stations that deposit people right into the bus, especially in the land of snow or rain. 

hno: We're just not getting it right.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Auckland (NZ) has recently completed a new busway. It began operation in February 2008 and is 11km long with 5 stations on it. 

It has the first integrated ticketing in Auckland in the form of the Northern Pass and (very poor, generally infrequent) feeder buses from the surrounding suburbs which the Northern Pass allows seemless connection to. It has park and ride facilities on a few stations (Constellation Dr and Albany to name the major ones) that are very well used.

The busway with two stations opened transported almost 1 million passengers a year, but this number is expected to grow now that all five stations are operational. 

Service is every five minutes at peak (uni-directional so morning peak towards city 5 minute intervals and afternoon away from city at 5 minute intervals) and every 10 minutes off-peak. After 19:30 the service drops to every 15 minutes. After 20:30 service drops to every 30 minutes with service stopping at 11:15. 

On Saturday and Sunday, most of the time the service is every 10 minutes, however, after 18:30 the timetable changes to every 15 minutes and becomes every 30 minutes after 20:00 with service ceasing at 23:00 (sat) and 22:00 (sun).

The Northern Express is by far the most frequent bus route in the whole of Auckland with most bus routes being serviced by 30 minute services** offering increased frequency on well trafficked routes during peak.

** NB: some services are as frequent as every 15 minutes, others run only hourly. Some services only run two or three times a day but these tend to be crosstown, low patronage routes.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Hartford is getting a BRT line soon, it may start construction next year. It will be one line, going from our Union station downtown to New Britain, a satellite city which is about 15km to the southwest of Hartford. 

I think that it's a half-hearted attempt that isn't ambitious enough because the state is too stingy. Ironically, the route will rip a large portion of abandoned rail (a large portion will be next to the railroad currently used by Amtrak), a la GM conspiracy style. :lol:

We're losing the opportunity to creating a light rail network. We have enough abandoned or rarely used ROW to create a genuine network that would connect plenty parts of the metro. We could even create a light rail connection to the Airport (a rail link is thought of, ATM).

Hopefully if ridership is decent, the new Department of Mass Transit thinks of converting the BRT to Light rail. I doubt that though, our state would rather spend billions on bridges or highways.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

There is a Youtube video of the Mexico city BRT system.. nice video, nice system.

Not as slick as Bogota (I really love the sliding glass doors in Bogota), but with the essential ingredients (busways, solid stations with turnstiles, level-platforms, busway). This video definitely makes a solid case that buses are more efficient than cars,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVRriKqXaIs


----------



## Pule (May 18, 2004)

As Adrimm said, 3 of South Africa's cities will implement the BRT and that is Port Elizabeth, Pretoria nd Johannesburg

*Johannesburg's BRT*



> By: Irma Venter
> Published: 7 Dec 07 - 0:00
> 
> The City of Johannesburg’s new bus rapid transport (BRT) system, named *Rea Vaya*, or “_we are moving_”, will introduce a sea change from the current public transport system South Africans have come to know.
> ...


*BRT intergrating with Rapid Rail System*


> FAST, RELIABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORT BECOMING A REALITY
> Gautrain will be accessible through a dedicated bus feeder network that will transport passengers to and from stations within a 15km radius. These will be linked to Integrated Rapid Public Transport Networks (IRPTNs) planned for metropolitan areas.
> 
> A prominent feature of these networks will be integrated Rapid Rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) priority corridors. These will provide city-wide, rapid public transport corridors together with feeder systems of smaller buses, taxis, bicycles, pedestrian access as well as metered taxis and park and ride facilities. As set out in the Department of Transport’s Integrated Transport Plan BRT systems offer fast, comfortable and low cost urban transport.
> ...


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

urbanfan89 said:


> More often than not, I see BRT as inadequate as a solution to rapid transit problems. If they do not have dedicated bus lanes and genuine stations, then they are just a glorified regular bus. If they do have those features, the additional cost of laying rail tracks is well worth the increased ridership from people who simply don't like buses.


It does majorly depend on the quality of the system and the layout. Here (Brisbane, Australia) we have somewhat of a reverse, the trains are old and dirty and people don't really like them, the busses are new and clean and service the more expensive suburbs. (whereas in the outer city the areas surrounding the train stations is fairly poor and crime filled). - Inner city of course is different as the property prices there have really pushed out alot of people. That said the train stations are mostly 20-30 years old, while the bus stations are less than 10.

Here's the things that I think makes it better than light rail:

- Services begin and terminate off the BRT corridors, which means that you can get a much wider catchment
- People do not have to change modes, they get on the bus near their homes, and when it arrives at the start of our Busway the bus just keeps going, you would otherwise need to get off, and change to a tram
- Stations have a passing lane: ! - This is very important as it means that express services can run without being held up behind services that stop at all stops.
- If there was ever an accident, busses can still pass and will not get held up

Here are some of the things that it has that I think 'makes' the system need:
- Modern well lit stations, express services that are all pre-paid ticketing
- Total traffic seperation almost all of it is on a raised concrete roadway, or seperate roadway. It is 20 something KM long, and for the most part unsignaled (only signals at the city end for 3 intersections, with Bus priority).
- They are low-floored wheelchair accessable busses and stops

When it was first built the stop closest to the city was only 2 lanes (only stop without a passing lane) As it was the intention to allow for light rail at that stop later, at that time there were headways of 24 seconds, and it has since been upgraded to dual lanes. I can only imagine at the moment that headways at that stop are <10 seconds, the flow of busses is pretty staggering.

The main advantage this has had is that there are now alot more services and express routes. So many people can get on a at one of the city stops and have it power away at up to 90kph until it gets right to their stop. (It is actually faster than the train, as the train has 19 stops in the same distance the express bus can have as little as 3. The express rail services start from further out.)

The system originally started the furtherest stop had 15minute frequencies in peak, now it's getting frequencies of a just a few minutes (no more timetable needed). And of course so many of the services start from suburbs that are too sparse to have heavy rail, or even light rail.


















^ That stop and the busway around it is actually enclosed with a mesh because it cuts past a golf course ! 


















This is one of the underground terminals in the city center, most services terminate here, it is right in the middle of the city under a large shopping centre / and pedestrian mall. It has apparently been much upgraded as they are connecting it to one of the northern busways directly underground (meaning that people will be able to come from the north right into the city without traffic lights on a bus) (the picture is old, I need to get one with the new upgraded station).

A new stop is also being built along the route of the tunnel under the square right next to city hall:










Hmm. All this shows me is that I need to go and take some more pictures myself, as it's hard to find up to date ones.

Some more images here:
http://www.dtarchitecture.co.nz/ta_01.htm


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

In Rouen, it works perfectly, it is joined in city centre by light metro ! Also each BRT line is well dedicated, and so separated from traffic jams ...




























+


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

Mekky II said:


> In Rouen, it works perfectly, it is joined in city centre by light metro ! Also each BRT line is well dedicated, and so separated from traffic jams ...


I think that is a good combination for transit, use the BRT for longer distance travel with fewer stops, (ie suburbs to centre) and something like a trolley or light rail network with frequent stopping points for the city centre. 

To me, closed dedicated busways are *essential*, but still only one component of BRT (others include proper stations with level platforms, mode integration, signal priority). 

I for one would never dream of bestowing the label of BRT on a system that didn't have closed busways and some other BRT essentials.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

My city has some express routes, which only differ from normal line in that they have less stops on the same route. Some have buslanes,some dont,but the lanes are never separated form the rest of the traffic. These express buses usually traverse those routes where there should be at least trams. Most are result of the downgrade of the tram network in the commie era.
some of these lines have about 4-7min frequency in rush hour,and 7-10 minutes out of rush hour,but the majority has about 10 min frequency in rh. The most frequent(and most used)line will be replaced(hopefully) by the u/c metro.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

adrimm said:


> I think that is a good combination for transit, use the BRT for longer distance travel with fewer stops, (ie suburbs to centre) and something like a trolley or light rail network with frequent stopping points for the city centre.
> 
> To me, closed dedicated busways are *essential*, but still only one component of BRT (others include proper stations with level platforms, mode integration, signal priority).
> 
> I for one would never dream of bestowing the label of BRT on a system that didn't have closed busways.





















T1, T2, T3 = BRT lines
M = light metro

Well, as you can see here there is as much stops as for the light metro here... in fact in beginning, rouen wanted a light metro east-west, the actual one is north-south, the problem is that in east and west of the city, there is hills, and it was economically very hard to do (there is only 500.000 inh.), and so they transformed light metro lines directly to BRT lines, with same distance for stops. I would like to add that a light metro is different from tramway (trolley) and light rail because it's running on exclusive right of way (that's surely why the combination of both systems here work well, they have exclusive ways, one on rails and the other on tires... eheh).

Rouen has another project that is for longer distances, it will use heavy rail and it will turn a light metro in cities centres.


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

adrimm said:


> I think that is a good combination for transit, use the BRT for longer distance travel with fewer stops, (ie suburbs to centre) and something like a trolley or light rail network with frequent stopping points for the city centre.
> 
> To me, closed dedicated busways are *essential*, but still only one component of BRT (others include proper stations with level platforms, mode integration, signal priority).


The alternative we have to level platforms is low-floor busses (ie there are no stairs except at the back). So they are fully wheelchair accessable even using normal height stops. Signal priority is the case, but there are not many signals, for the most part it is entirely seperated and doesn't require them.
They are slowly moving exclusively to pre-paid tickets, previously while most people had pre-paid now on many services it is a requirement. (They also just got the tag-on /off cards launched too so that you don't need to even work out what fare/ticket you need, you just tag on and off and don't have to think about it)

One of the benefits is that so many of the services start from further away from the city than the busway runs, or even are feeder services, but then may simply continue on without stopping once they reach the busway. The alternative is feeder busses that stop 20+ times, then a core rail system that also stops 20+ times. I have a service locally than runs 30km and stops at most twice before it reaches my destination in the city center. This is great because it is actually faster than using the car (in peak). The local heavy rail service requires driving a car to the station, getting out, waiting for a train, then stopping 20 times on the way to the city. It takes twice as long as just driving.

That's what we need here locally, services faster than using the car, because pretty much everyone has one, and that is what public transport needs to be competitive with.


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

> The bare minimum of what **all** BRT & LRT stations ought to look like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA4IR7PvO6I ..... and if it is anything less I don't want it in my town.


We don't really need the screen doors here, it never gets particularly cold, and while it gets warm enough to require air-conditioning on the busses themselves, well shaded and ventillated stops are ample to keep people happy. There are fences in the middle to stop people crossing from one platform to the other, and the busses are low enough to the ground that they are wheelchair accessable (a choice in busses rather than the platforms). It also means that any bus can use the platforms, not just special busses with exactly the right openings. (which is important in a system that services busses from not only the city council but from multiple external operators (they have to be licenced to use it, it's not for coaches or the general public)

(Note the two city center stops do have closed platforms with screen doors, but they are likely to be the busiest stops, the others have alot of glass and light used in their construction so that they feel very safe (nowhere that is dark and secluded)


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

The Brisbane busway system looks exactly like the extensive network of transitways in Ottawa: segregated roads, passing lanes at BRT stations, one-stop buses from anywhere in the suburbs to the centre, and full-fledged stations. But it's become a failure chiefly because buses run on surface streets in the centre and because of sheer overcrowding. There are finally plans to create a tunnel and convert the system to rail to alleviate congestion (e.g. it's better to have six-car trains running every six minutes than to have a bus every one minute) and encourage TOD around stations.


----------



## Tcmetro (Jun 9, 2007)

In Minneapolis-St. Paul we have 1 BRT line. It runs between the Minneapolis U of M campus to the St. Paul U of M campus. It opened in 1992, and it is free of charge. It runs Monday-Friday every 5 minutes from 6 AM to 7 PM, with limited-stop versions every 15 minutes. From 7 PM to 12 AM, and on Weekends it runs every 15 minutes. There is some service between 12 AM and 3 AM, and I think it is every 60 minutes. Since 2005 it has been considered as part of the regional transit system and is route number 121.

There is also a so-called BRT line on Interstate 394 which opened between 1986 and 1992. There are HOT lanes and buses have to exit the freeway to access the "stations" (park and rides with glorified bus shelters). There are departures every few minutes during rush hour, but midday, evening, and weekends the buses are every 60 minutes. Route numbers are 643, 649, 652, 663, and 671-675.

Planning for I-35W and Cedar Avenue Freeway BRT is under way. They are scheduled to open in 2009-2010. There will be a new median freeway station at 46th Street. A station has existed at Lake St. since the 1970's, but is not in good condition. Recently new bus shelters were installed, and the lanes were repaved. Several new curbside stations will be constructed, as well as appx. 1500 new park and ride spaces.


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr841aqHrf0&feature=related < That's actually the inner city bit. The first part is being replaced eventually so that the busses avoid that intersection, and go right onto a new bridge. 

They're also building alot more tunnels for the inner city part. You can see in that clip the 3 traffic lights (bus priority but traffic lights none the less), before it turns onto the busway proper where there is only 1 down the entire length (busses only, and is only red when busses are entering the corridor from another station that is off to the side.)

Heavy rail is ultimately better if it's done right (modern driverless trains, good well laid tracks etc). But the resumptions needed for heavy rail would have been far more, and the route would have had to be much straighter. This is much better than light rail, but it just doesn't have the capacity of heavy rail.

The northern busway (sourthern was the one shown) is just now having an underground bit connected right to the city center (previously it was all seperated then required city streets for the last very short distance, but it will be saving 20 minutes on a trip with just this fairly short tunnel, as they will be able to exit the city without any surface traffic or traffic lights. It will be a completely seperate system.

As for 1 every six minutes being > one per minute, that depends, if you maybe have to wait 3 minutes and you get a bus that takes you right to your door, it's much better in my opnion than waiting 6 for a bus that takes you to a station where you then have to wait another 5 for a bus to take you to your door. Every minute counts, the entire system was doing 'ok' but when they increased the frequency from 15 minutes to 5 minutes the patronage inceased even more to match it (all of a sudden having not needing a timetable made it attractive). Also people hate waiting at stations. They would rather drive a car that takes 5 minutes longer than spend 5 minutes at a station, because the illusion of progress on your journey make it seem shorter than waiting.


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

Tcmetro said:


> There is some service between 12 AM and 3 AM, and I think it is every 60 minutes.


Friday and Saturday nights the core services run along the busway 24 hours (hourly services after midnight > 5am). They had a trial where train services ran those hours also, but people did not feel safe on trains at those hours. A bus with a dozen people on it feels much safer than a train with the same.


----------



## sbstn (Sep 5, 2008)

The government here has been talking about putting a BRT from a suburb of San Juan, the capital, to connect it with the Tren Urbano, our train system. Has anyone seen something like this work well in their country or city? 

The other option is to connect the suburb with the train by means of light rail, the obvious opposition to this is its higher cost.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

tollfreak said:


> I heard from an ABC 7 news coverage in Chicago they will implement an express bus system similar to the busways. They will have a dedicated lane on the left shoulder of I-55 and is projected to operational in early 2010. The route is from the South West Suburbs and will stop at an "El" station (CMIIW).


 Yep. I am very curious how and if it will work. I think it will and I hope it does as long as it doesn't try to impede on Metra Commuter rail service. I expect a handful of others like it witin a few years where there is appropiate space along the expressways to do so. 



> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-express-bus-16-apr16,0,7014767.story[/]
> *Express bus route will use I-55 shoulders*
> By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter
> April 16, 2009
> ...




From Chicago Tribune....


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Luckystreak said:


> BRT system has started in New Delhi, India recently. There was wide spread rebuttal of the system intially but slowly its proving to be a success.


Slowly proving to be a success? The line was a mess from the start. It caused 5 deaths, and turned the corridor into a traffic nightmare. The New Delhi BRT is a perfect example of how NOT to do BRT, and there are calls to scrap the system, and give the laneways to cars.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

JustinB said:


> ... and there are calls to scrap the system, and give the laneways to cars.


This is the stupidest idea ever!
Improve the system! Make it better!


----------



## sbstn (Sep 5, 2008)

iImprovement does sound better than scraping it haha


----------



## sbstn (Sep 5, 2008)

JustinB said:


> Slowly proving to be a success? The line was a mess from the start. It caused 5 deaths, and turned the corridor into a traffic nightmare. The New Delhi BRT is a perfect example of how NOT to do BRT, and there are calls to scrap the system, and give the laneways to cars.


^^
Wow, that's intense. 
I fear that would be a problem for where they want it in PR. but we don't know for sure, of course..


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

Delhi BRT project selected for Taiwan award
Delhi chief secretary Rakesh Mehta has left for Tainan city in Taiwan to receive the award at a function on Wednesday at an Asia Pacific conference
PTI
New Delhi: Delhi Government might be receiving flak for the controversial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor here, but the project has been selected for an award by a Tawain-based organisation.
Delhi chief secretary Rakesh Mehta has left for Tainan city in Taiwan to receive the award at a function on Wednesday at an Asia Pacific conference being organised by a voluntary body, People to People International’s Tainan Chapter.
Before leaving for Taiwan, Mehta said international experts have complimented the project and there is need to educate people about usage of the corridor.
“BRT is going to provide efficient mass transportation,” he said, adding the fact that the project has been chosen for the Asia Pacific award indicates its importance.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India in its latest report had pulled up the Delhi government for implementing the project in haste ignoring suggestions from the concerned experts.





















JustinB said:


> Slowly proving to be a success? The line was a mess from the start. It caused 5 deaths, and turned the corridor into a traffic nightmare. The New Delhi BRT is a perfect example of how NOT to do BRT, and there are calls to scrap the system, and give the laneways to cars.


Actually, the BRT has become a success in New Delhi. Initially, there were lots of problems, since this was the first BRT in India, and no one knew which lanes to drive in, but now it's working very well. It's also harder to implement in India because there are many more types of vehicles in Indian cities (rickshaws, cycle-rickshaws, bicycles, bullock-carts, scooters, etc.) that aren't present in many other cities. 

The political party that implemented the BRT won elections again and the BRT was one of the things they showed as their successes. Plans for new BRT corridors are underway. They are definitely not scrapping the BRT in Delhi.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ How do people get to the BRT platforms? Are there dedicated pedestrian crossings or underpasses to the platforms as that road looks very busy.


----------



## sbstn (Sep 5, 2008)

when was the first BRT implemented in New Delhi?


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

sbstn said:


> ^^
> Wow, that's intense.
> I fear that would be a problem for where they want it in PR. but we don't know for sure, of course..


It's the truth. I do not hate BRT, or have any bias against. Anything that improves transit is OK in my books. This project was poorly planned, and implemented. They TOOK away lanes from an extremely busy road, and gave it to the buses. Sound good in theory, but all they did was force cars into less road space. They should have expanded the road width when adding the bus lanes. To call this system a success is stretching it.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

JustinB said:


> It's the truth. I do not hate BRT, or have any bias against. Anything that improves transit is OK in my books. This project was poorly planned, and implemented. They TOOK away lanes from an extremely busy road, and gave it to the buses. Sound good in theory, but all they did was force cars into less road space. They should have expanded the road width when adding the bus lanes. To call this system a success is stretching it.


Public transport over private car usage must always be favoured, even if its not the popular decision.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Mo Rush said:


> Public transport over private car usage must always be favoured, even if its not the popular decision.


Not when it produces chaos, and make it harder for pedestrians in the corridor. 
5 deaths of pedestrians trying to reach the buses. Nuts!


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

JustinB said:


> Not when it produces chaos, and make it harder for pedestrians in the corridor.
> 5 deaths of pedestrians trying to reach the buses. Nuts!


Correction, NMT and Public Transport must be favoured.


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

JustinB said:


> Not when it produces chaos, and make it harder for pedestrians in the corridor.
> 5 deaths of pedestrians trying to reach the buses. Nuts!


Just because 5 people died does not mean you should totally abandon a project and stop future expansion, as you are suggesting. Just because five people died in accidents, should millions of other public transit users suffer by not having better public transit?

Instead, they should focus on increasing safety in the current and future corridors and make sure there are fewer accidents in the future.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

niknak said:


> Just because 5 people died does not mean you should totally abandon a project and stop future expansion, as you are suggesting. Just because five people died in accidents, should millions of other public transit users suffer by not having better public transit?
> 
> Instead, they should focus on increasing safety in the current and future corridors and make sure there are fewer accidents in the future.


I never said to abandon the project. There were calls to abandon the projects from political figures in India. 

What I am saying, is the project should not be considered a success, because it was poorly planned, and executed. This project caused many accidents, and deaths. How is that a success? I,m sorry but it's not. This BRT is an example of how not to implement a transit system.


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

In the last 8 months, there has not been a single accident on the BRT corridor in Delhi.

There were a few deaths initially since no one in India had ever heard of a BRT and motorists didn't know what was going on (which is completely normal when you implement a brand new transit system in a country). Also, pedestrians in Delhi are usually very impatient and normally dont use crosswalks, which led to further confusion in the beginning. So yes, when it started, it was not a success at all, but now the Delhi BRT is a success.


During elections, the government that implemented the BRT won in every district adjacent to the corridor!!!

Now, the BRT is a success and a majority of people in Delhi are happy with it. Delhi's government is continuing the expansion of the corridor.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^The Dehli BRT seems to be a major success. For some light rail supporters, any system that doesn't have steel wheels and a pantograph is automatically considered a failure. The success of BRT can be measured by the amount of vituperative that some light rail advocates hurl at it. Light Rail Now is a prime example:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm

Light Rail Now's propaganda should be balanced by the propaganda from pro-BRT websites:

http://www.gobrt.org/

http://www.nbrti.org/

http://brtc.homestead.com/index_2.html


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

JustinB said:


> ...What I am saying, is the project should not be considered a success, because it was poorly planned, and executed. This project caused many accidents, and deaths. How is that a success? I,m sorry but it's not. This BRT is an example of how not to implement a transit system.


Would you consider the light rail Blue Line in Los Angeles a success? The following is the Blue Line's accident record from its opening in 1990 through 2008:

Total Metro Blue Line Incidents/Accidents: 821
Transit vs. Vehicle Incidents: 652
Train vs. Ped. Incidents: 169

Total Metro Blue Line Fatalities: 90
Train vs. Vehicle Fatalities: 26
Train vs. Ped. Fatalities: 64


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Only Mr. Christine would attempt to make this into a LRT vs. BRT debate, when it is about one BRT system that was poorly planned, and implemented. This is not an anti-BRT rant, as Mr. Christine would love to claim.
I have no bias against BRT as viable option. I support any bus or rail transit line(except Monorail, waste of money), where it is justified. I think BRT is a great way to improve capacity in a corridor where rail is not justified. I have issues where rail is the better option, but BRT is built instead, only to have the BRT line quickly reach capacity, and not be able to expand(The LACMTA Orange Line, for example). The fact remains, the initial BRTS corridor was not a success. There was serious problems, which were caused by the implementation of the corridor. The road should have been widened to accomodate the extra lanes. Giving 2 lanes to the buses, and forcing the same number of cars into less space was a recipe for disaster.

Speaking of the Blue Line, 70 of those fatalities were the result of people breaking the law, and trying to beat the train. 20 were suicides. 

Never trust Mr. Christine's post, as he likes to fudge the truth to fuel his anti-transit agenda. 

A quality bus service in my home region that is currently upgrading to BRT, with an eventual upgrade to LRT:

www.vivayork.com/?go=vivanext_rapidways

Click enter, and you should be directed to the proper page.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^This is exactly what I was writing about in my previous posts. If you visit any thread on this forum about BRT, PRT, monorail, or maglev, you will see the same individuals criticizing the systems and calling them failures. Any mention of problems with light rail results in those same individuals becoming defensive and spewing forth streams of excuses.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

JustinB said:


> Exactly.
> 
> BRT advocates love to sell BRT as a cheap alternative to rail. It's not. BRT can never, ever come close to rail in terms of capacity, and prominence, no matter how much money they pour into sites such as nbrti.org, Calstart, or Breakthrough Technologies.
> 
> ...


Exactly why Cape Town maintains that rail forms the backbone of our transport system,which it does and will continue to do.

Cape Town's BRT will align itself with rail services and provide additional services where the cost of a new rail service exceeds the benefits. Cape Town also benefits from an existing reasonably extensive rail service.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

That's a smart move. Get people to the trains quickly, and in an attractive manner.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Now that this thread has devolved into the usual Bus Rapid Transit versus Light Rail Transit debate, I'll share some numbers from website of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Los Angeles has the Orange Line BRT and Gold Line LRT, which are roughly the same length and operate through corridors with similar population density.

http://www.metro.net/news_info/facts.htm

Date Opened
Gold Line LRT: July 26, 2003
Orange Line BRT: October 29, 2005

Average Weekday Boardings (March 2009)
Gold Line LRT: 24,293
Orange Line BRT: 22,334

Total Annual Boardings FY2008
Gold Line LRT: 6.58 million
Orange Line BRT: 7.46 million

Route Length
Gold Line LRT: 13.7 miles
Orange Line BRT: 14 miles

Stations
Gold Line LRT: 13
Orange Line BRT: 13

Number of Railcars or Buses
Gold Line LRT: 24
Orange Line BRT: 30

System Cost
Gold Line LRT: $859 million 
Orange Line BRT: $330 million

FY2009 Operations Budget
Gold Line LRT: $44 million
Orange Line BRT: $23 million


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Because Los Angeles is the best case study for the impact of public transit in a city isn't it?


----------



## Tiago Costa (May 17, 2006)

Northsider said:


> ^^ Exactly, which falls into my point of BRT not being a _replacement_ or alternative to a metro line like so many BRT advocated tout.


But there is a range in demand that can be served either by BRT or by light/medium capacity metro. There is not a gap, or a rigid boundary, when I can say "this demand can be served only by BRT", or "this demand can be served only by a light/medium capacity metro". The future outlooks for demand and the local population growth planned for the long term can help a lot in this cases, for example:

If a given corridor have a demand of 15.000 passengers/hour/direction, and in the next 20 years the demand is expected to grow to 20.000 passengers/hour/direction, and a BRT system can handle the future demand (which in most cases, a well-planned BRT can do), the best solution is the BRT.

But if a given corridor have a demand of 10.000 passengers/hour/direction, and in the next 20 years the demand is expected to grow to 30.000 passengers/hour/direction (a demand that a few BRT systems can handle, and not with good quality, and that a metro line can handle easily, while having a high chance of being profitable, if it is a light/medium capacity line), the best solution is a metro line. While the demand don't reaches at least 20.000 passengers/hour/direction, the minimum for a metro line that don't operates much under its capacity, a BRT line can be a temporary solution, but a metro line can't be discarded for the future, when the demand grows, and its construction can't be delayed too far, because the result maybe what happened in Curitiba.

When the subject is BRT x light rail, there are some things to deal with, especially the operation costs: BRT is cheaper than light rail. But the demands that the two systems serve, despite being almost the same, are better served by BRT when are lower, and are better served by light rail when are bigger. Adittionaly, when the demand is low, a BRT can be profitable, when a light rail can't. But when we talk about bigger demands, light rail systems deal better with it. And more, since light rail can deal with bigger (but not so much bigger, somewhat about 30.000 passengers/hour/direction with quality) demands than BRT, a light rail can serve a given demand corridor for more time than a BRT until a metro line is necessary.

Urban planning is the most important factor when dealing with future demands, because it have direct impact over it. Bad urban planning, bad future projetions, bad quality of the transport systems.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> Because Los Angeles is the best case study for the impact of public transit in a city isn't it?


Another attempt to start another LRT/BRT debate. Mr. Christine is quite obsessed with it.

I think everyone understands that each mode has it's own advantages, and disadvantages, and each installation is unique.


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

Which works better?

1) Having the bus lane in the center of the road

2) Having the bus lane on the sides of the road


----------



## Orfeo (Oct 26, 2003)

Northsider said:


> ^^ Exactly, which falls into my point of BRT not being a _replacement_ or alternative to a metro line like so many BRT advocated tout.


with the exception of a few posters, i don't think the argument is that BRT is equal to a metro, but that the debate focuses on when best to implement either system.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

niknak said:


> Which works better?
> 
> 1) Having the bus lane in the center of the road
> 
> 2) Having the bus lane on the sides of the road


With side lanes, you will have far more interactions with vehicles entering, and exiting from driveways. Center lanes avoid this, but it forces riders to cross potentially busy streets. 

Personally, I think center lanes are the better choice. You can have higher speeds, and less interaction with other vehicles.


----------



## niknak (Sep 30, 2008)

Are there any cities with BRT lanes on the sides of roads?


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

*BRT Failure in Miami.*

It happened in Los Angeles, it's now happening in Miami.

*South Miami-Dade Busway may give way to cars
Officials plan to vote on a controversial plan to convert South Miami-Dade's Busway into a highway with toll express lanes.*

A proposed plan would convert the South Miami-Dade Busway into -- among other alternatives -- a four-lane highway with express toll lanes where private vehicles would share the road with buses.
A proposed plan would convert the South Miami-Dade Busway into -- among other alternatives -- a four-lane highway with express toll lanes where private vehicles would share the road with buses.

BY ALFONSO CHARDY
[email protected]

For years, motorists in South Miami-Dade have longed to drive on the two-lane bus road on the west side of the chronically congested South Dixie Highway.

Now they might get their wish if county commissioners and other local elected officials approve a proposed plan to convert the Busway into -- among other alternatives -- a four-lane highway with express toll lanes where private vehicles would share the road with buses. The revenue would then be used to fund the cash-strapped county transit agency.

The July 23 vote by commissioners and mayors who are members of the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization would enable the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority to obtain a detailed study on ways to convert the Busway.

It would bring dramatic change to the Dadeland-to-Florida City roadway, which was built to encourage motorists to take buses that travel more quickly because they benefit from green-light priority at intersections.

But the strategy didn't work out well because Miami-Dade Transit was never able to operate many buses on the roadway. Currently, between 10 to 27 buses per hour during rush periods serving some 20,000 passengers per day use the Busway. At times the north-south roadway is practically empty.

Transit advocates now fear that modifying the Busway to allow private vehicles would further discourage commuters from using public transportation and reward solo drivers.

DIFFERING VIEWS

Katy Sorenson, a county commissioner and MPO member, provided a hint of the looming controversy when at last month's MPO meeting she urged fellow board members not to take actions that would steer people away from public transit.

''When the issue was brought up a year ago, I had some reservations, because undermining transit is the last thing I would want to do,'' she said. ``This would not necessarily undermine transit and it could provide a funding mechanism for transit. But I want to make sure that in this effort, transit is priority one and secondarily congestion relief.''

Commissioner Carlos Gimenez, also an MPO member, suggested he was more interested in relieving congestion even if that means allowing private vehicles on a bus-exclusive roadway.

''I would support moving forward,'' Gimenez said, alluding to the coming vote on the conversion study. ``If it competes with Miami-Dade Transit, so be it.''

The majority of members at the May 28 meeting seemed to support the conversion study, but not all 22 members were present.

OPTIONS

Three possible conversion alternatives were outlined to MPO members in May by an MPO staffer who said the options would be analyzed more in-depth in the Busway study.

Alternatives described by Larry Foutz, the MPO's transportation systems manager, included:

• Leaving the Busway as is, but allowing private vehicles to use it by paying a toll that would be deducted electronically via SunPass accounts.

• Adding one or two lanes, plus flyover bridges at certain or all intersections to ensure faster travel times for buses and toll-paying private vehicles.

• Building a four-lane elevated highway, moving traffic at expressway speeds along a totally rebuilt Busway from Mowry Drive in Homestead to the Dadeland South Metrorail station in Kendall.

Making no changes to the roadway and adding toll-paying traffic would cost almost nothing, Foutz said, but the option would only allow no more than 5,000 vehicles per day to use the facility and would likely slow the buses.

The other alternatives would add more vehicles to the roadway and range in cost from $228 million to $1.8 billion.

The most expensive, what Foutz called the ''Taj Mahal'' of the options, would be the elevated expressway-style alternative.

Under any option, Foutz said, toll rates would be relatively high because officials want to keep demand as low as possible to maintain fast travel times.

TOLL RATES

Tolls, in anticipated 2030 dollars, would range from $11.25 to $12.75 for travel from one end of the Busway to the other.

Depending on the toll rate and number of toll-paying vehicles, revenue would range between $11 million and $37 million per year.

The Busway was built along an old Florida East Coast railroad corridor that the Florida Department of Transportation acquired in 1988. Subsequently, the right-of-way ownership was transferred to Miami-Dade County.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

JustinB said:


> serving some 20,000 passengers per day use the Busway.
> 
> (...)
> 
> but the option would only allow no more than 5,000 vehicles per day to use the facility


If 4 people would be sitting in a car,they would be equal. If less,the busway would still serve more people...I dont see the reason for closing it...


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

Ridiculous. Closing the busway would be a travesty. Just another example of backward thinking in Florida and the USA. Hmm, maybe better marketing to the residents about the benefits of the busway would be prudent. I have personally used a combination of local bus, metrorail and busway to get from the airport to points south -- it works, and at 8:30am it is FAR faster than sitting in traffic. Using the busway with metrorail/bus is actually a viable alternative to using the packed highways in the area. 

Steve


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Pittsburgh operates a light rail system that is about 25 miles long and attracts about 26,000 passengers per day. Light rail advocates declare it a success. Miami operates a busway that is about 20 miles long and attracts about 20,000 passengers per day. A light rail advocate posts an article about it under the title "BRT Failure in Miami". To some, any light rail line will always be considered a success and any busway will always be considered a failure.

The article states, "... Miami-Dade Transit was never able to operate many buses on the roadway. Currently, between 10 to 27 buses per hour during rush periods serving some 20,000 passengers per day use the Busway. At times the north-south roadway is practically empty." I am left wondering if ridership wouldn't be higher if there were more funding for bus operations. The alternatives that are being considered involve giving the busway over to private automobile traffic. The alternatives do not include building additional transit.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

this is complete and utter bullshit along with the possible permanent death of Tri-rail over a ludicrous $2 rental car fee.

It will be less effective as transit, to be only superficially self-supporting financially as some kind of retarded HOT/HOV lexus lanes setup. Superficially because public funds built the thing, public planning obtained the land it sits on


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Mr Christine, it is always some sort of LRT vs. BRT with you. There is no debate. Only concern. Why are so-called BRT systems being turned into HOV/HOT lanes? It happened in Los Angeles, and now it's happening in Miami. 
They were built as busways, they should remain as busways.

This is a failure of BRT, when something that is supposed to improve transit is handed over to cars.


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

> At times the north-south roadway is practically empty.


Um...yeah, that will always be the case. Unless the buses are running end to end then there will always be times when the road looks empty. A 10 minute headway means that you will not see a bus for....10 minutes.

The same could be said for any transit. "The rails are practically empty, sometimes you don't see a train for 15 minutes straight!"hno:

Steve


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

10 to 27 buses per hour is easily enough to make a bus lane feasible.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

JustinB said:


> ... Why are so-called BRT systems being turned into HOV/HOT lanes? It happened in Los Angeles, and now it's happening in Miami.
> They were built as busways, they should remain as busways.
> ...


I agree! Allowing private cars to use the busway lanes has the potential to degrade the BRT service. The BRT buses could end up like regular city buses or streetcars stuck in shared traffic lanes. The most important factor in attracting ridership is speed. If the buses are stuck in traffic, they won't attract ridership.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Can mass transit really work in South Florida?


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

BRT is just the new buzz word of the day. Hence it's not surprising that many operators label their regular bus services "BRT".

But what is a "quality" BRT? BRT enthusiasts claim it's virtually like LRT. That would mean at least partial (if not mostly) grade seperation, accessibility, certain quality of stations, high frequency of service.

What people never take into consideration are the mere economical disadvantages of BRT compared to LRT:
- The life cycle of any road vehicle is considerably shorter than the one of rail vehicles. Heavily used busses are completely worn out after 10 years.
- lower capacity, which means more buses in order to reach the same capability, which means higher costs for salaries (number one cost factor in western nations!)
- Gas prices: With peak-oil already reached, gas prices are very likely to go up gradually and become a major cost factor, whereas green electricity production is booming
- Environmental factors: higher pollution, higher emissions, particulate matter problem is a major health risk --> Kyoto Agreement
- Lower running smoothness compared to rail, lack of the 'rail bonus' means lower passenger numbers
- in addition to bus wheel noises which are the number one traffic nuisance for nearby residents


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

lightrail said:


> What about 2 minute headways? Vancouver, B.C.'s 99 B-Line (a BRT running in mixed traffic) along Broadway runs every 2 minutes in the peak and every 4 minutes during the day - it carries 44,000 people per day. The only concession to true BRT is all-door boarding at all stops (but no ticket machines at the stops, passes and transfers can load on rear doors and people needing to buy a ticket load on the front door)


The 99 B-Line is NOT BRT, Not even close. It's a heavily used limited stop line. The 99-Line is another great example where a bus line was simply-rebranded, and considered a "success" because of fairly high ridership.
I have been hearing talk about building an underground line along this corridor. 44,000 riders a day does not justify upgrading a bus line to a fully seperated underground rail system. Not yet. An LRT line can be built on the surface that will increase the speed, and capacity of the line, and it will not take years to build. THEN you look at maybe building an underground rail line.



> As a transit rider the frequencies of some LRTs built before the demand is there leave much to be desired (off peak frequencies on Portland's MAX for instance). I'd rather have shorter waits for small vehicles and proper shelter during those waits.


Considering the success of LRT in North America, not everyone holds that sentiment. For the record, it's up to the agency to determine how they run their system. It has little to do with technology. Calgary Transit runs trains every 5-8 minutes during the peak, and 10-15 minutes in the off peak. That is not that much worse than the Skytrain which runs trains every 8 minutes(not the combined section). Heck, the Canada Line is running trains every *20* minutes in the off-peak! I have been to Vancouver a number of times, and I have seen trains packed to the point, that I had to wait for another train. 
Small vehicles won't make a difference, if the agency does not buy enough for shorter waits.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

rheintram said:


> BRT is just the new buzz word of the day. Hence it's not surprising that many operators label their regular bus services "BRT".


Not always, in several cities it IS quite a alternative for the rail transport.



> What people never take into consideration are the mere economical disadvantages of BRT compared to LRT:
> - The life cycle of any road vehicle is considerably shorter than the one of rail vehicles. Heavily used busses are completely worn out after 10 years.


Which means the passangers will get newer buses, the comfort will be higher, they will use new technologies



> - lower capacity, which means more buses in order to reach the same capability, which means higher costs for salaries (number one cost factor in western nations!)


As somebody already mentioned: it's better to wait short and ride the "small" bus than wait hours and ride the "huge" train. For me as passenger is very important how long do i have to wait.



> - Gas prices: With peak-oil already reached, gas prices are very likely to go up gradually and become a major cost factor, whereas green electricity production is booming


There are already mentioned new technologies: hybrid, ozon and so on. And u can always build a troleybuss BRt-system as well (like Barquisimeto i.e.)



> - Environmental factors: higher pollution, higher emissions, particulate matter problem is a major health risk --> Kyoto Agreement


As above: new technologies make buses more 'friendly'
And besides: every mass transit system is better than cars, and bus systems are 1. cheaper and 2. faster to build 3. more felxible which means less cars on the roads.



> - Lower running smoothness compared to rail, lack of the 'rail bonus' means lower passenger numbers
> - in addition to bus wheel noises which are the number one traffic nuisance for nearby residents


This is some kind of "legend". The so called 'rail bonus' is just 'good and fast transportation bonus', because rails are usually indipendent from the individual traffic, hence more reliable. If the bus systems were build the same way (as it is the case with BRT) this 'rail-bonus' turnes in 'BRT-bonus"

The well planned BRT systems give us today the proof that they are alternative to the trams, and it's possible to skip the tram when the passangers numbers are increasing. From Bus to BRT to metro line (if this is really needed)


----------



## lightrail (May 24, 2007)

JustinB said:


> The 99 B-Line is NOT BRT, Not even close. It's a heavily used limited stop line. The 99-Line is another great example where a bus line was simply-rebranded, and considered a "success" because of fairly high ridership.
> I have been hearing talk about building an underground line along this corridor. 44,000 riders a day does not justify upgrading a bus line to a fully seperated underground rail system. Not yet. An LRT line can be built on the surface that will increase the speed, and capacity of the line, and it will not take years to build. THEN you look at maybe building an underground rail line.
> 
> 
> ...


This is about BRT, not LRT

The 99 B-line IS BRT! It was originally conceived as a bus rapid transit - an LRT on wheels. It has distinct stops and all-door boarding. It is not a re-branding because it never existed prior to being developed as a B-line. It was and is the fore-runner of Skytrain, orginally extending to Lougheed.

44,000 is the ridership of the 99 - add in the ridership of the trolley buses running almost as freqently as the b-line and you're up to around 80,000 people a day. Adding rail would most likely double the ridership and then some. So yes, a Skytrain line is justified in the Broadway corridor.

Where do you propose to build an LRT on the surface along Broadway that will be faster than a bus? You're not making any sense.

Canada Line has just opened, is carrying 85,000 people a day before any bus routes have been rerouted to feed into it and it runs every 3 minutes off-peak until 6pm, then every 6 minutes to 11pm then every 10 minutes to last train (the branches run at half these freqencies). 

Skytrain runs every 108 seconds on the combined section in the peak and every 3 minutes in the day and 4 late at night and half that on the two branches (none combined section).

Why are you comparing the late-night frequency on Vancouver's skytrain lines with Calgary peak frequencies. 

Get your facts right before coming up with half-assed statements and stupid comparisons.

I'd support LRT too if it was separated from traffic (in tunnel or on it's own right-of-way) and had priority. I prefer SKytrain because it would require no break at Commercial-Broadway for travellers and uses a proven technology in the Vancouver region.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

lightrail said:


> This is about BRT, not LRT
> The 99 B-line IS BRT! It was originally conceived as a bus rapid transit - an LRT on wheels. It has distinct stops and all-door boarding. It is not a re-branding because it never existed prior to being developed as a B-line. It was and is the fore-runner of Skytrain, orginally extending to Lougheed.


BRT is NOT LRT on wheels. Not even close. The 99 lacks qualities that would make it true BRT. The 99 B-line is a product of slick marketing. If people think a fancy shelter, colourful livery, and a few less stops is BRT, then that is all we are going to be stuck with. You can achieve this on any bus route. I want quality BRT with level boarding, and at least segregated median lanes. York Region Transit's Rapidway are a step in the right direction.

http://www.vivanext.com/rapidways



> 44,000 is the ridership of the 99 - add in the ridership of the trolley buses running almost as freqently as the b-line and you're up to around 80,000 people a day. Adding rail would most likely double the ridership and then some. So yes, a Skytrain line is justified in the Broadway corridor.


44,000 from a limited stop service, and roughly 36,000 from routes that make frequent stops does not justify a underground rapid transit service, whose stations would most likely be 1km apart or more. The next logical step would be to either put the buses in their own lanes, or build surface rail. Not an underground line, which will most likely only be used by UBC students.You'd think agencies would learn from Toronto. Going to from a bus to an underground transit line is a recipe for failure, and high maintenance costs.



> Where do you propose to build an LRT on the surface along Broadway that will be faster than a bus? You're not making any sense.


LRT can be easily built on Broadway. The key is to increase the capacity of the corridor. You do that by putting buses in their own lane, or building LRT in it's own lane. You increase the speed of transit. I've visited Vancouver a couple of times, and I remember Broadway being 6 lanes along most of the corridor. It won't be difficult to give two lanes to buses, or rail. Much cheaper, and faster to build then an underground system, and you're not building a line with excess capacity.



> Canada Line has just opened, is carrying 85,000 people a day before any bus routes have been rerouted to feed into it and it runs every 3 minutes off-peak until 6pm, then every 6 minutes to 11pm then every 10 minutes to last train (the branches run at half these freqencies).


For such a great automated system, the frequencies are pretty crappy. All that money spent on a stripped down transit line, in which riders are forced to transfer to. That must suck, transferring to a single line station, and having to wait 20 minutes for a train.



> Skytrain runs every 108 seconds on the combined section in the peak and every 3 minutes in the day and 4 late at night and half that on the two branches (none combined section).
> Why are you comparing the late-night frequency on Vancouver's skytrain lines with Calgary peak frequencies.
> Get your facts right before coming up with half-assed statements and stupid comparisons.


YOu should get YOUR facts straight. The Skytrain does not run 108 seconds. It runs around 2 minutes peak on the expo line, and 5-6 minutes on the Millenium line. It IS capable of 108 minutes(same with LRT), but Translink does not have enough trains to even run that frequency. Hell, in Budapest, LRT run at a frequency of 90 secs ON THE SURFACE, using 54 metre long trams. 
That comparison was made to show adrimn that LRT can achieve short frequencies, no problem. The fact remains, skytrain technology isn't that special. LRT can do everything Sytrain can do, and is more flexible. It's funny how you tell me to get my facts straight, when you cannot even define BRT properly. 



> I'd support LRT too if it was separated from traffic (in tunnel or on it's own right-of-way) and had priority. I prefer SKytrain because it would require no break at Commercial-Broadway for travellers and uses a proven technology in the Vancouver region.


It will still require a transfer for most of the riders. I'll wager most of the riders on the Broadway will be coming from Downtown Vancouver, Richmond, and Surrey. They are going to be transferring at Broadway. Proven technology? Last time I checked, Translink is heavily subsidizing that "proven technology, and sadly, the Evergreen is being delayed again.

But this thread is about BRT, and the 99-Line is a perfect example of how riders are being deceived into believing a limited stop service is BRT.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Anytime someone starts a thread about BRT, PRT, monorail, maglev, or any other system that doesn't ride on steel wheels, light rail fanatics jump in to voice their prejudices. The result is that any such thread becomes a debate about the weaknesses of light rail.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

greg_christine said:


> Anytime someone starts a thread about BRT, PRT, monorail, maglev, or any other system that doesn't ride on steel wheels, light rail fanatics jump in to voice their prejudices. The result is that any such thread becomes a debate about the weaknesses of light rail.


That's true!
It's maybe because they are afraid, BRT is a real alternative to lrt.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Anti-rail fanatics love how BRT is built in North America, because they know North American BRT systems are not true rapid transit, and are simply a re-branded express bus line. Calgary is doing it right. They installed the express bus service since the corridor does not justify rapid transit yet.
Anti-rail fanatics cannot accept monorails, and PRT simply are not viable transportation alternatives, and will never be more than niche circulator systems, that usually cost much more than an conventional rail system, or proper Rapid Bus system.
Case in the point, the ULTRA PRT installation which was delayed AGAIN until 2010. 
It will always be an LRT vs. BRT debate with Mr. Christine. PRT can never be a alternative to rail, so he has to look towards buses.


----------



## StreetView (Jul 25, 2009)

The way I see it, BRT should be rather the first stage than an alternative of rapid transit. Initially, cities should built BRT lines with short headways during peak hours (5 minutes or less) to encourage urban development in the areas served by BRT lines. Then, as the time progresses and those areas in the city grow, the BRT structure (busways, stations, etc) should be converted into LRT (second stage), so that they can maintain service quality and keep stimulating growth in those areas. Finally, when those areas are about to become fully developed urban areas (i.e. high density areas, including residential and business buildings), the transportation system should be upgraded to heavy rail, which then would be much easier to build, once there will be enough room already to go on with the construction work, causing fewer disruptions in traffic and less of a negative effect in local shops and businesses during the construction of the heavy rail line (third stage).

Other than that, BRT lines should also feed traffic to higher capacity transportation systems (light and heavy rail), intersecting stations of those systems (where they exist, obviously), rather than competing with them.

As someone mentioned, Curitiba has a fully functional BRT system (the first in the world, actually), but there are plans to convert the BRT's North-South Trunk Line into a subway system -- funding is the main issue at this time.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

The following are some videos of BRT systems around the world.

Brisbane, Bogota, & Curitiba
Part I




Part II





Bogota





Curitiba





Paris





Cleveland





Los Angeles





Eugene (TV Commercial)


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

StreetView said:


> ...
> As someone mentioned, Curitiba has a fully functional BRT system (the first in the world, actually), but there are plans to convert the BRT's North-South Trunk Line into a subway system -- funding is the main issue at this time.


Just about every light rail advocacy website carries a story claiming that a rail transit line is to be built to replace the main trunk of the Curitiba BRT system. I have actually seen a graphic for a proposed subway line in Curitiba. I haven't seen any evidence on the Internet that the subway line is actually being built. Lack of funding is the likely explanation. A light rail line could be built at much lower cost than a subway; however, light rail would offer no significant performance advantage over the existing BRT system.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

If you call the one in Paris BRT,then there are millions of kms of BRT in the world. Thats just a buslane.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

StreetView said:


> ...
> As someone mentioned, Curitiba has a fully functional BRT system (the first in the world, actually), but there are plans to convert the BRT's North-South Trunk Line into a subway system -- funding is the main issue at this time.


That's the point! The lrt/tram has never been the option in Curitiba. It's been skipped by BRT! So there is no need to waste money for the second stage. Two are more than enough: BRT-->Metro


----------



## StreetView (Jul 25, 2009)

greg_christine said:


> Just about every light rail advocacy website carries a story claiming that a rail transit line is to be built to replace the main trunk of the Curitiba BRT system. I have actually seen a graphic for a proposed subway line in Curitiba. I haven't seen any evidence on the Internet that the subway line is actually being built. Lack of funding is the likely explanation. A light rail line could be built at much lower cost than a subway; however, light rail would offer no significant performance advantage over the existing BRT system.


They have been talking about it for many years, but now it's getting serious. Curitiba is going to host the world cup in 2014 and it's a requirement that each host city must provide decent transit. The North-South Trunk Line is a major transportation line for the entire metro area (providing connections to neighbor towns like Colombo, Almirante Tamandaré, Araucária and Fazenda Rio Grande) and it's been operating over capacity for years. About three years ago, they managed to increase capacity by adding new Volvo B12M buses (which are 2 meters or 6½ feet longer than the older B10M), but it's still over capacity. Currently buses have 2 minute headways during peak times and are nearly always full. So, there really is a necessity of upgrading it to a subway system, but like I said, funding is an issue. City of Curitiba is in talks with Federal Government of Brazil, trying to assure that they will get the needed money and have the subway system built by 2014, in order to comply with the FIFA requirements.



Falubaz said:


> That's the point! The lrt/tram has never been the option in Curitiba. It's been skipped by BRT! So there is no need to waste money for the second stage. Two are more than enough: BRT-->Metro


In this case, I have to agree. However, let's not forget that Curitiba is in Brazil and it's not always easy to get loans to finance investments in public transportation, due to lack of credit. Actually, much of the money that has been used to finance investments in transportation in Curitiba came from banks of other countries (like France and the US). The last major improvement in the NS Trunk Line was back in 1994, when the tube-stations were built and the first double-articulated buses entered into service. An LRT system could have worked well if it had been built a few years ago, when the buses were not so overcrowded. It's too late for LRT now, especially considering that Curitiba will host the world cup in 2014 and that new bus routes that funnel traffic into NS Trunk Line have been added recently (and there are more to come by the end of next year).


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> Anytime someone starts a thread about BRT, PRT, monorail, maglev, or any other system that doesn't ride on steel wheels, light rail fanatics jump in to voice their prejudices. The result is that any such thread becomes a debate about the weaknesses of light rail.


The same song,sang too many times... when BRT-fanatics have no more arguments.But in "our" (it meansolish) topics I got used to Falubaz's half-true-oppinions (or I could even call it worse,but maybe not this time).But every time I meet such a guy,I wonder why he writes such a bu... things 
I know what's about Falubaz:he's a local patriot (or rather a local nationalist) from Zielona Góra and he "loves" Gorzów Wielkopolski (the co-capital of Lubusz voivoidship;the other co-capital of that voivodship is of course Zielona Góra).Unfortunately,the important element of Gorzów's pride are... trams (it is confirmed fact,described even in Wikipedia).Zielona Góra has no chance to have it's own light rail,so Falubaz's strategy is clear like water taken just form the source:"prove that trams are an old-fashioned mean of transport and you'll prove that Zielona Góra is more modern tha Gorzów".
But take care:ZG is going to have trolleybusses,so from the day he got to know about it,a diesel engine ins't the best solution for him anymore :lol:
But go back to the topic 

Costs... The main problem with BRT is that it looks cheaper only from the first sight... just like a chinese car:you buy it for few times less money than a car made by Volkswagen (made in EU) or Toyota.But it's a last good news:next you can see the quality of this car is very poor,the technology used to produce it is old fashioned and at least you have to scrap it very soon (did you ever wonder,why scrapping of the 15-year old car is obligatory in China?Of course,if it's a home made car ).
You mentioned above Busway in Brisbane.Fortunately I have some data about it (exactly the cost of some sections):


• South East Busway (completed 2001):
15,6 km (9.7 mi), US$421 million
$27 million/km
$43 million/mile 

• Inner Northern Busway (completed 2008):
4.7 km (2.9 mi), US$408 million
$87 million/km
$141 million/mile 

• Northern Busway Project (currently under way):
1.2 km (0.7 mile), US$158 million
$132 million/km
$214 million/mile 

And comparing this to some light rail projects:


• Charlotte — Lynx LRT, South corridor (completed 2007):
9.6 mi (15.5 km), US$496 million
$32 million/km
$52 million/mile 

• Sacramento — Folsom LRT extension (completed 2004):
7.4 mi (11.9 km)
$25 million/km
$41 million/mile 

Probably thanks to Busway Brisbane is starting to build a subway line (and still thinking seriously about light rail) and their neighbours in Gold Coast prepared everythig they need (including money) to travel by light rail in 2014?

You get something you didn't expect:sometimes BRT is more expensive from the beginning. I don't remember,but in some of canadian greater cities BRT also turned out to be more expensive than LRT (I mentioned it in a polish topic;maybe Falubaz remembers,where they are?  ).Why Vancouver is going to convert it's BRT into a more usefull mean of transport (and BTW:why they are going to borrow 2 Flexity Outlook trams from Brussels next year?).Why Montreal is going to build the first light rail line?Why everyday we got to know about new light rail projects in North America?

Even in South America something changes: few months ago Falubaz (who was telling that you don't need a subway when you have BRT) received a bad surprise from Curitiba: it was the news about the first metro line in this city.The Curitba's BRT reached "the final border" of it's capacity! Then Falubaz started to persuade us,that subway is usefull and is the next stage above the bus :lol:
But the last shot came about a month ago:news about the first light rail line in Brasilia :lol:

And a final question:do you know about some european BRT lines,which have to be converted into light rail (eg. the only BRT in Finnland and some lines in France? ).


If you want me to explain some other BRT hidden costs,just ask;one post is too short to write everything about it 

Best regards


----------



## StreetView (Jul 25, 2009)

Eurotram said:


> Costs... The main problem with BRT is that it looks cheaper only from the first sight... just like a chinese car:you buy it for few times less money than a car made by Volkswagen (made in EU) or Toyota.But it's a last good news:next you can see the quality of this car is very poor,the technology used to produce it is old fashioned and at least you have to scrap it very soon (did you ever wonder,why scrapping of the 15-year old car is obligatory in China?Of course,if it's a home made car ).


Indeed. That's why I said that BRT should be the first stage of rapid transit. BRT systems have a short lifespan compared to heavy rail systems because the ridership quickly reaches the capacity.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

Eurotram started here again his privat war - his enemy is known as "BRT". If u guys need a "professional" (in fact a 'very good' home made) psychoanalysis, just say: "BRT is good", "great", "awesome" (or anything positiv), and u get the even better result when u say "BRT is an alternative to trams" - but the latter one is on ur own risk. 
U can be chased through out the threads

@ Eurotram - Jak masz coś do mnie to dawaj na PM i "don't make a village" jak to ktoś b. znany powiedział.

@ StreetView
Sure, the problem is, some routes never reach that high capacity, when a heavy rail is needed and in fact BRT is pretty fast and cheap way to make the city transportation WAY better.

Btw. isn't it interesting how many cities all around the world start building BRT-systems?


----------



## GavinC (Apr 4, 2008)

I have no preference for either, but it should be pointed out that in relation to Brisbane:

The most recent busways are the more expensive inner city fragments of the future northern busway, involving tunnelling and bridges, and thus more expensive than the existing south east busway, which mainly follows a freeway right of way. The northern busway as a whole will follow an existing major artery and should be much cheaper than the initial parts.

Each day the South East busway alone carries more passengers than the entire suburban train system. This is due to the busway operating as a trunk route - buses originate in the suburbs before joining the busway on their journey to the city - the number of routes using it is about 20 I think - headways are quite short. Its catchment is therefore massively larger than a train line alone could manage.

The public subsidies for bus passengers is much less than it is for train passengers.

The underground line proposed has nothing to do with the busways, rather it is required as there are more lines radiating out from the city than pass through it, which will create a bottleneck as more train services are added.

The South East busway (and all busways in Brisbane I understand) are designed to be upgradeable to light rail in the future.


----------



## StreetView (Jul 25, 2009)

Falubaz said:


> @ StreetView
> Sure, the problem is, some routes never reach that high capacity, when a heavy rail is needed and in fact BRT is pretty fast and cheap way to make the city transportation WAY better.


In parts, I agree with you, but the thing is that we live in different continents, so we tend to see things a little differently. I said 3 stages bacause currently I live in Brazil and it's a developing country in which infrastructure lacks. In most of the cases here a BRT system would solve the problem for now but would need further expansion in capacity. Same thing in North America: population is still growing at large rates compared to Europe's growth rate (and obviously small compared to Africa's population growth). I know in Europe population sizes are pretty stable and hence a BRT system could suit a city well for many decades, but I overlooked this fact.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

StreetView said:


> In parts, I agree with you, but the thing is that we live in different continents, so we tend to see things a little differently. I said 3 stages bacause currently I live in Brazil and it's a developing country in which infrastructure lacks. In most of the cases here a BRT system would solve the system for now but would need further expansion in capacity. Same thing in North America: population is still growing at large rates compared to Europe's growth rate (and obviously small compared to Africa's population growth). I know in Europe population sizes are pretty stable and hence a BRT system could suit a city well for many decades, but I overlooked this fact.


Yep, that sounds right to me.
Nevertheless the Brazil's Curitiba showed how it's possible to solve huge problems with small money and in fact it impressed the richer countries a lot.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

Falubaz said:


> Eurotram started here again his privat war - his enemy is known as "BRT". If u guys need a "professional" (in fact a 'very good' home made) psychoanalysis, just say: "BRT is good", "great", "awesome" (or anything positiv), and u get the even better result when u say "BRT is an alternative to trams" - but the latter one is on ur own risk.
> U can be chased through out the threads


It starts to be really boring... It's not a private war;I could rather call that your irrational aversion to trams.You put here (and you know where  ) fairytales taken from websites or periodics strongly sympathizing with BRT lobby's (like that "data" taken from the website supporting development of roads and highways);I try to make it more true and show you (or rather to the other people) the rewers of this "coin".You are trying to prove,that something you can't have in your city isn't necessary;I'm trying to show,that human costs of transport companies (I have to write it:*it's the thing,you know completely nothing about*!) make a real difference (apart from much longer tram's working life).BRT has only (and not always,what I proved) one advantage:lower purchase price... just like a chinese car 



Falubaz said:


> @ Eurotram - Jak masz coś do mnie to dawaj na PM i "don't make a village" jak to ktoś b. znany powiedział.


Najzwyczajniej mi się nie chce,tak jak (przyznaję uczciwie) nie miałem w ciągu ostatnich dwóch dni dość cennego czasu,by na te wypociny odpowiedzieć;zresztą dość go już zmarnowałem w wątku o BRT,bo nie da się przekonać kogoś,kto ma zupełnie inne intencje.Co do priva... to Ty też swoich bajek nie piszesz na privie,a publicznie 



Falubaz said:


> @ StreetView
> Sure, the problem is, some routes never reach that high capacity, when a heavy rail is needed and in fact BRT is pretty fast and cheap way to make the city transportation WAY better.


In NORMAL big city transport system there IS something between subway (or/and S-bahn) and buses.You know what's that:your "beloved" trams.You want example?Here you have:BERLIN! 



Falubaz said:


> Btw. isn't it interesting how many cities all around the world start building BRT-systems?


As a (a very difficult word for you) COMPLEMENTATION of subway,trams and "common" buses.Or maybe you'' be so kind and write here how big are these european cities,which start building BRT-systems?


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Eurotram said:


> In NORMAL big city transport system there IS something between subway (or/and S-bahn) and buses.You know what's that:your "beloved" trams.You want example?Here you have:BERLIN!


:banana:

You'd think BRT, and subway fanatics would get this.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

There are no BRT or subway fanatics. The ppl that talke about 'em don't 'troll' in trams-topics as this is the case here and in every monorail, BRT and no-tram-topic.

As for the word that i don't know (i'm too stupid to know it i guess - judging from the answer i got from eurotram) - COMPLEMENTATION: trams and common buses are the same as BRT and common busses, coz BRT are an alternative to trams.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

Falubaz said:


> There are no BRT fanatics.


Oooo,what a pity;I suppose the only one mirror in your home is broken.But if you ask someone,he'll lend you one for sure.And then... you'll be able to see a BRT fanatic :lol: 



Falubaz said:


> The ppl that talke about 'em don't 'troll' in trams-topics as this is the case here and in every monorail, BRT and no-tram-topic.


Your hipocrisy is ubelievable;you fight against trams in every topic you have a possibility to do it!It's no mater what's the topic about: about monorail (eg. in Rzeszów) or fast urban railway (in your city ),you put your "three cents";moreover,these "three cents" are always the same: you can build everything you want,but not tramway!Even the first post in your favourite topic was a one big provocation,counted to elicit a reaction from people who know,that trams are a reasonable solution in big cities (and even in very big cities,but on one condition:trams can't try to substitute subway;in such big cities,I mean in cities about few million inhabitants, they can only COMPLEMENT SUBWAY AS A PART OF A TRANSPORT SYSTEM;by the same way BUSES CAN'T SUBSTITUTE TRAMS OR SUBWAY,but only COMPLEMENT THEM.The best example you have in Paris:all the means of transport are developed year by year.Guess why...?



Falubaz said:


> As for the word that i don't know (i'm too stupid to know it i guess - judging from the answer i got from eurotram) - COMPLEMENTATION: trams and common buses are the same as BRT and common busses, *coz BRT are an alternative to trams*.


As I supposed:you really don't understand this word.Or rather YOU DON'T WANT to understand it hno:


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

Oh, a brand new psychoanalisis? How nice! Thx doc!


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

Falubaz said:


> That's the point! The lrt/tram has never been the option in Curitiba. It's been skipped by BRT! So there is no need to waste money for the second stage. Two are more than enough: BRT-->Metro


You'll never accept the information that in some cases LRT or tramway / streetcar can be almost as effective as metro, be it in your native language or any other, will you? Also, repeating the story about BRT low costs recalls me only the words by Goebbels: "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth".


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

That's my point: in some cases trams (i.e. fast-trams/premetro/lrt and so on) can be an alternative to the full metro. And the same again: BRT can be an alternative to rail-transport too. What to choose is always the question of: 
1. costs that are needed
2. time for building the system
3. political will

btw.
Which lie? About trams being the only ones good? But let's stop trolling here about trams. It's the BRT-topic.Trams are not the single solution. Proof? - dozens and dozens of cities have already BRT-systems and hundreds more are building it and/or planning.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Some of my own considerations in this subject written in *BOLD* inside the quote:



rheintram said:


> BRT is just the new buzz word of the day. Hence it's not surprising that many operators label their regular bus services "BRT".
> 
> *Just like LRT at it's day and age ... pure marketing/propaganda for reselling something.*
> 
> ...


I give you a couple of examples:

They just built a "new" LRT system nearby here ... after 6 months of operation it is completely EMPTY al day long ... they just go on about practically without nobody using them ... 
The bus routes (Wich actually got deprived of their BUSways because of the LRT construction) nowadays go mixed with the remaining road traffic and ... they are packed full all day long. 

^^ Just a mix of GOOD tariff's vs. bad tariff's and a complete lack of common sense when "investing" in upgraded services in the area.

A revised and upgraded busway trunk would have been a much better choise than trowing a lot of money into the garbage just to "have a LRT" service in the area.

And this is one of the key factors where BRT wins over LRT ... one is focused on improving service to the comunity/region (BRT) and the other is focusing on creating "something" ... and this something usually doesn't seem to _smell that right_ in the first place. :bash:

Then we get the complete oposite ... in my town/city (40.000 hab /120.000 hab in the conurbation) we get a 60 bus network with ... 5m of BUS lanes(it's actually just a bus-only road section) and a smeaphore/signal with BUS indicators not connected to any actuall BUS lane (And that's all)... and some 20 MILLION anual passengers in the SMALL network ... just think of anything like the amount of 10/20 million €/$/£ in revenues coming out of that ... it gives you a great prespective of what a "propperly placed" BRT network can do for any place.

Of the record ... there are about 15 different routes ... in the main arteries of the town (almost all are actually 1+1 roads) that net's a 15/30 seconds headway during rush hour ... all packed full.

Offtopic: one thing we find "amusing" here is that "comuter" in north america is usually freigh grade locomotives pulling something between 3 trans a day and 1 tph ... here it usually means a train every 10/15 minutes ... 30 minutes tops ... and one should expect that at any station a network of propper BUS feeder services would be available. :cheers:


----------



## lightrail (May 24, 2007)

sotavento said:


> Some of my own considerations in this subject written in *BOLD* inside the quote:
> 
> 
> Offtopic: one thing we find "amusing" here is that "comuter" in north america is usually freigh grade locomotives pulling something between 3 trans a day and 1 tph ... here it usually means a train every 10/15 minutes ... 30 minutes tops ... and one should expect that at any station a network of propper BUS feeder services would be available. :cheers:


Commuter trains in North America use frieght tracks simply because all of the railways are privately owned and the private companies move frieght, not passengers.

The number of trains vary - but commuter refers to people moving into the city to work in the day and then home at night. There are many examples of commuter trains operating more frequently than you state. Vancouver has 5 trains in and five trains out - limited by available train paths and cost to rent those paths from CP Rail. Toronto has all day commuter trains, as does Montreal. In the US, commuter trains run all day in New York, Chicago, San Franciso, Los Angeles,, mabe others I've missed. But certainly not the frequencies you see on European systems, whcih were setup fgor and are still used primarily for passengers.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Eurotram said:


> ...
> 
> And comparing this to some light rail projects:
> 
> ...


Part of the Charlotte Lynx route already existed as a heritage streetcar line. The Sacramento Folsom Line was initially built as single-track. Why not mention Seattle where the initial LRT segment cost about $150 million/mile and future extensions are projected at more than $200 million/mile.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Regarding the cost issue, what is really of interest is the cost of BRT versus light rail in the same corridor. Studies of this have been performed in several cities. The following is information I've found in various reports on the Internet. 


VANCOUVER - COQUITLAM/EVERGREEN LINE

- Capital Cost
Guided Buses: $285 Million
Light Rail: $670 Million

- Operations and Maintenance Costs per Passenger Boarding
Guided Buses: $4.10 /Passenger
Light Rail: $6.95 /Passenger


LAS VEGAS - HENDERSON TO NORTH LAS VEGAS

- Capital Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $700 Million
Light Rail: $1,115 Million

- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $218 Million/Year
Light Rail: $203 Million/Year


SAN JOSE - WARM SPRINGS BART CONNECTOR

- Capital Cost
Busway BRT: $1,155 Million
Light Rail: $1,514 Million

- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Busway BRT: $19.5 Million/Year
Light Rail: $41.8 Million/Year


NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA

- Capital Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $178 Million
Light Rail: $250 Million

- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $4.7 Million/Year
Light Rail: $9 Million/Year


SEATTLE - I-90 TRANS-LAKE WASHINGTON LINE

- Capital Cost
Rail Convertible BRT: $3.7 - $5.0 Billion
Light Rail: $4.6 - $6.2 Billion

- Operations & Maintenance Cost (Net change relative to common baseline)
Rail Convertible BRT: -$17.2 Million/Year
Light Rail: +$29.0 Million/Year


When presented with thses figures, light rail supporters counter that light rail would attract higher ridership. I believe there is some truth to this though the exact numbers are subject to debate. I have seen claims that light rail will attract up to 30% higher ridership than BRT operating in the same corridor. Even if this claim is accepted, BRT is still very competitive as light rail is generally at least 30% more expensive. For the same amount of money, a more extensive BRT system can be built that would attract higher ridership.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

My intention when I began this thread was not to get into justifying or not justifying BRT, but to point out the edit: "politically" hazy line between an express bus and a quality BRT, and the liberties that some agencies may be taking in how they brand or present the service they are offering.


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

adrimm said:


> My intention when I began this thread was not to get into justifying or not justifying BRT, but to point out the incredibly hazy line between an express bus and a quality BRT, and the liberties that some agencies may be taking in how they brand or present the service they are offering.


It's really just about marketing. A while ago officials decided to label the suburban and regional train services in my area "S-Bahn" and nothing else really changed (still terrible time table on some branches, lousy stations, etc). 

And recently some wise-ass politicians proposed some minor improvements to the bussystem (more articulated buses and shorter headways) and named their idea "Superbus", while it is nothing but a minor (and much needed) improvement to the regular bus system.

Officials and politicians like these rebrandings: They don't cost too much, make a nice picture opportunity and sound great on paper.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> Regarding the cost issue, what is really of interest is the cost of BRT versus light rail in the same corridor. Studies of this have been performed in several cities. The following is information I've found in various reports on the Internet.
> 
> 
> VANCOUVER - COQUITLAM/EVERGREEN LINE
> ...


Greg,my post I wrote a while ago crashed like a house of cards,so I answer you again,but in a shorter way (I you want I'll develop the discussion).

First two cases (Vancouver and Las Vegas): you compare SkyTrain (a mean of transport placed "higher" - not only above the street level - than a modern tram;a mean of transport FULLY independent of city traffic,which trains can be developed by additive sections;it could be developed to a real S-bahn) to trolleybuses (which can be developed to only to ca. 24 meters by buying a Lightram,a swiss trolleybus for 1 Mio. Euro each)? Are you sure they are comparable?Besides in Vancouver think of introducing trams (they are borrowing 2 Flexity trams from Brussels next year 








and if they have tram system,then it's costs would be lower than Skytrain's.
Las Vegas:again monorail,but longer.Nothing to compare 

San Jose light rail:








Two- or three-car-trains.What about comparison per passenger (and other things I can write if you want me to develop this discussion)?

NORFOLK:

Nearly 30 m. long Avanto in 7,5 min. tact against buses (max.18m long).What can carry more passengers:such a LRT line or a BRT line?

SEATTLE:
Old BredaMenarini high floor trolleybuses (fully cushioned many years ago) against lately inntroduced,nearly 30m long low floor Kinki-Sharyo trams.Different length,different capacity and... wait few years till the moment they will must replace the rolling stock (trolleybuses of course) and I suppose then costs on this side will significantly increase


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Guided buses, light rail, and Skytrain were all considered in the initial studies for the Coquitlam/Evergreen Line in Vancouver. Guided buses were found to have the least cost. Skytrain was found to have the highest ridership. Light rail occupied an uncomfortable middle ground with a ridership closer to BRT at a cost closer to Skytrain. Light rail was initially selected by default because guided buses were considered developmental and Skytrain was above a pre-defined cost cap. The decision was later revisited with Skytrain being selected.

The transportation authority in Las Vegas considered BRT, light rail, and commuter rail (Diesel Multiple Units) for a regional transit line. The selection was quickly narrowed to either BRT or light rail. Monorail was never actively considered. The Las Vegas Monorail is owned and operated by a private company unrelated to the transportation authority. The transportation authority realized that BRT could be designed as a network that offered a single-seat ride downtown from various corners of the region with local buses merging onto the BRT route. The concept was publicized with the slogan "An Octopus not a Snake".


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

adrimm said:


> My intention when I began this thread was not to get into justifying or not justifying BRT, but to point out the edit: "politically" hazy line between an express bus and a quality BRT, and the liberties that some agencies may be taking in how they brand or present the service they are offering.


Please excuse the digression. Every time BRT is mentioned, an argument erupts with light rail proponents.

The biggest enemy of BRT is the tendency for transit agencies to simply give their buses fancy paint jobs and declare them BRT. Essential elements that BRT should have include the following.

- Dedicated or restricted use travel lanes.
- Off-vehicle ticket purchase.
- High service frequency.

Fancy paint jobs on the buses should be optional.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Much has been said about BRT. Basically though, its an option for cities that don't have enough funding to build a real rail transit system along a particular corrider, that's all. If Curitiba had the funds to build a rail line, they'd probably have gone with rail, they didn't so they went with BRT. Cleveland waisted something like half a billion bucks on a BRT, for not much more, they might have greatly improved their existing heavy/light rail.


----------



## adrimm (Dec 17, 2006)

bayviews said:


> Much has been said about BRT. Basically though, its an option for cities that don't have enough funding to build a real rail transit system along a particular corrider, that's all. If Curitiba had the funds to build a rail line, they'd probably have gone with rail, they didn't so they went with BRT. Cleveland waisted something like half a billion bucks on a BRT, for not much more, they might have greatly improved their existing heavy/light rail.


There are a numerous other threads debating the appropriateness or suitability for different modes in different places - as I said above my intention when starting this thread was to explore the differences between a full/quality BRT, and an express bus service and how mis-branding arises.

Perhaps someone can resurrect or begin anew one of the intentional rail vs BRT threads and move the discussion there - I think the political willingness for mass transit network expenditure would make for a robust conversation.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> Please excuse the digression. Every time BRT is mentioned, an argument erupts with light rail proponents.


How it sounds... but I must put a little correction here:you show it as a war of good-natured BRT-enthusiasts and fanatical LRT-fans;meanwhile the situation looks quite different.I'll give you an example:known here Falubaz started his BRT-topic form an evident provocation,which sounded almost like "now we have good weapon to fight against trams".So i'll write it shortly: in that topic ([Świat] Bus Rapid Transit) a BRT FANATIC STARTED THIS WAR. In this context question:why LRT-fans write in BRT topic looks really funny;I really doubt that if I called on (not only) LRT-fans to encourage transport operators in their cities to reduce a bus lines opreation (and if I did it in an LRT-topic),you (BRT fans) wouldn't react 
Adrimms move (I mean: starting of this topic) was a kind-hearted action,but unfortunately not everyone goes the same way... I gave you examples of complementation and coegsistence of different means on transport in one big city;and you take it as a malicious act...?





greg_christine said:


> The biggest enemy of BRT is the tendency for transit agencies to simply give their buses fancy paint jobs and declare them BRT. Essential elements that BRT should have include the following.
> 
> - Dedicated or restricted use travel lanes.
> - Off-vehicle ticket purchase.
> ...


Such a thing we'll have in our capital (Warsaw);but i agree that METROBUS will be no BRT.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

adrimm said:


> There are a numerous other threads debating the appropriateness or suitability for different modes in different places - as I said above my intention when starting this thread was to explore the differences between a full/quality BRT, and an express bus service and how mis-branding arises.


I think the main disadvantage lies in its rapid nature. The city has to have a normal bus line running parallel,to bring the people who live between stations to the stations. This limits is usefulness in any city,especially in denser ones,where more people would be skipped this way than reached. I view the "express" as a middle way between the BRT and the normal buses,and it probably would bring in the best results,if there's no prejudice against buses.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

A quick comment about Mr. Christine's analysis of the Translink Evergreen Line. It is well known that the studies for the Evergreen Line were conducted to favour Skytrain Technology. The study was conducted with each technology being assigned a different alignment.
The LRT routing contained more tunneling, and more stations which increased the cost considerably. If the the same routing were used for all 3 modes, chances are LRT would have come out as cheaper than Skytrain with roughly the same ridership.

As it stands, the Evergreen Line has been delayed once again, as Translink simply cannot afford to build automated metro technology at the moment. Makes you wonder why Translink is not willing to look at other technologies than Automated Light Metros.

Concerning RTA's BRT system. IT is not really BRT, but more of an express bus system with some dedicated laneways.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Both Skytrain and light rail featured the same tunnel segment to avoid a steep grade. The guided bus option did not feature a tunnel as guided buses could climb the grade. The initial decision was in favor of light rail almost by default as guided buses were rejected as being developmental and Skytrain was rejected as being above a predefined cost cap. I am not sure how this could be viewed as a skewing of the criteria to favor Skytrain. Skytrain was shown to have a major advantage in ridership. This was in large part due to the fact that Skytrain would provide a single-seat ride to central Vancouver whereas light rail and BRT would require a transfer. The decision was subsequently revisited with Skytrain being selected.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

greg_christine said:


> ^^ Both Skytrain and light rail featured the same tunnel segment to avoid a steep grade. The guided bus option did not feature a tunnel as guided buses could climb the grade. The initial decision was in favor of light rail almost by default as guided buses were rejected as being developmental and Skytrain was rejected as being above a predefined cost cap. I am not sure how this could be viewed as a skewing of the criteria to favor Skytrain. Skytrain was shown to have a major advantage in ridership. This was in large part due to the fact that Skytrain would provide a single-seat ride to central Vancouver whereas light rail and BRT would require a transfer. The decision was subsequently revisited with Skytrain being selected.


LRT, and Skytrain were studied using different alignments, number of stations, and different headways. and even different speed! Independent analysis showed the Skytrain alignment was less costly then the chosen LRT alignment. Why not just use the the less costly alignment for BOTH modes in the study, instead of studying 2 different alignments? Why did the Skytrain alignment have 8 stations, and while the LRT alignment have 12? Why was LRT headways automatically set at 5 minutes, and Skytrain 3 minutes? 

Translink went out it's way to make Skytrain technology the preferred technolology, and now they are paying for it, since it seems they cannot even afford to build the line at the moment. Translink is not willing to look at cheaper options(surface rail), and because of this stubborness, The Vancouver region is going to be stuck with a limited system, and reduced service due to the insistence of building expensive metro systems that are not really reducing congestion, and only increasing an already huge debt. 

And the Evergreen Line would not go to Central Vancouver. To go to Central Vancouver, the line would have to travel SE through WestMinister, and Burnaby, and travel along the combined Expo/Millenium line section. To continue on to Central Vancouver, a transfer would still be required regardless. 
One seat ride? Not likely, and definitely not a valid reason to spend billions, and go further into debt.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ The initial study selected light rail over Skytrain and BRT. It is ridiculous to claim that the study was deliberately skewed against light rail when light rail was the selected option!

The information I have on the present proposal indicates that the Evergreen Line would be integrated with the existing Millennium and Expo lines. Trains would run through to central Vancouver without a transfer being required. This was one of the reasons that Skytrain was forecast to achieve higher ridership than BRT or light rail. The time required to transfer between lines is eliminated with Skytrain. The initial study commented that the commute to central Vancouver with the Skytrain option would be so quick that riders on the West Coast Express commuter trains would likely transfer to Skytrain at Coquitlam. 

The following are some numbers for the selected NW route from the initial study.

Travel Times, Coquitlam City Center to Millennium Line
Skytrain: 13 minutes
Light Rail: 23 minutes*
Guided Buses: 25 minutes*
* Includes walk and wait time for transfer to Millennium Skytrain Line for Light Rail and Guided Buses.

New Transit Riders
Skytrain: 2600
Light Rail: 2100
Guided Buses: 2000

Maximum Transit Riders per Hour - Peak Direction
Skytrain: 5900
Light Rail: 2600
Guided Buses: 2100

Capital Costs
Skytrain: $840 million
Light Rail: $670 million
Guided Buses: $285 million

Annualized Capital and O&M Cost per Passenger Boarding
Skytrain: $4.30
Light Rail: $6.95
Guided Buses: $4.10

Benefit/Cost Ratio (Average)
Skytrain: 0.8
Light Rail: 0.7
Guided Buses: 1.4

Reading the study really opened my eyes to the reality that very little room exists for light rail between BRT and a system like Skytrain.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

For anyone who is interested, the following is from the business case document that outlines the switch from light rail (LRT) to Skytrain (ALRT) as the chosen technology for the Coquitlam/Evergreen Line. I'll offer apologies that this does not concern BRT.

=========================================================

BACKGROUNDER

BUSINESS CASE RELEASED:
ALRT TECHNOLOGY ON EVERGREEN LINE

Benefits of ALRT for Evergreen Line:

The business case recommends ALRT for the Evergreen Line because it:
· will accommodate two and a half times the ridership of LRT (2021), ensuring it will meet current and future demand and support the Provincial Transit Plan goal of doubling ridership by 2020;
· will enable faster travel time – almost half the time from Coquitlam Town Centre to Lougheed Town Centre (12.6 minutes versus 23.6 minutes for LRT on the Northwest route, for example);
· has more frequent schedules – every three minutes versus five minutes for LRT;
· will easily integrate with the current rapid transit system, notably the Millennium Line.

Route Description
· Northwest Route from Lougheed Station, elevated on North Road to Burquitlam, then tunnelled to Port Moody where it runs at-grade parallel to the Canadian Pacific Rail right-of-way to Coquitlam West Coast Express Station, then elevated on Pinetree terminating near Douglas College in Coquitlam.
· Southeast Route from Lougheed Station, elevated on the south/east side of Lougheed Highway to Coquitlam West Coast Express Station, continuing north on Pinetree terminating near Douglas College in Coquitlam.


Capital and Operating Costs (2007 dollars) 

Capital Costs NW CORRIDOR
ALRT $1.4 billion 
LRT $1.25 billion 

Capital Costs SE CORRIDOR
ALRT $1.4 billion 
LRT $1.1 billion

Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs NW CORRIDOR
ALRT $10.2 million 
LRT $15.3 million 

Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs SE CORRIDOR
ALRT $10.8 million 
LRT $15.1 million

Operating Cost per Passenger (at 2021) NW CORRIDOR
ALRT $0.45 
LRT $1.70 

Operating Cost per Passenger (at 2021) SE CORRIDOR
ALRT $0.48 
LRT $1.49


Summary of Alternative Frequency, Capacity and Operating Speed

Frequency: time between trains (minutes)
ALRT 3.0 
LRT 5.0

Maximum Operating Speed (km/hr) 
ALRT 80 
LRT 60

Peak Hour Capacity (2021) 
ALRT 10,400 
LRT 4,080


Summary of Route and Technology Characteristics

Total Distance (kilometres) NW CORRIDOR
ALRT 10.9 
LRT 11.2 

Total Distance (kilometres) SE CORRIDOR
ALRT 12.6
LRT 12.6

Total Travel Time (minutes) NW CORRIDOR
ALRT 12.6 
LRT 23.6 

Total Travel Time (minutes) SE CORRIDOR
ALRT 14.8 
LRT 17.7

Annual Riders (000’s – 2021) NW CORRIDOR
ALRT 22,900 
LRT 9,000 

Annual Riders (000’s – 2021) SE CORRIDOR
ALRT 22,500 
LRT 10,300


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

greg_christine said:


> Reading the study really opened my eyes to the reality that very little room exists for light rail between BRT and a system like Skytrain.


Yet this study doesn't show any parameters crucial to make it really objective. No capacity of vehicles is shown, no average speed and so on. It is very easy to couple two trains together on LRT and completely impossible on BRT - that's why the parameter of hour capacity is so important. Of course, if you take a LRT car of equal size to BRT bus, it will be more costly. But you have to remember about the hidden potential of rail transport.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

That is the same study I am talking about. The study has been soundly criticized by transit planners, and experts. This study does not take in consideration LRT's ability to couple separate vehicles into trains. Translink did not even use the same route alignment for LRT! For some reason, the LRT route has *more* tunneling, yet still contains street running. AND Translink set LRT's speed limit to 60km, with Skytrain at 90km!
With Mr. Christine, you can never tell if what he posts is telling the whole story, or not. Numbers do not tell you if one mode is better than the other.
It's even more shameful that this line will never be built anyways. It's too expensive, and Translink isn't willing to look at other options, namely LRT. 



> Reading the study really opened my eyes to the reality that very little room exists for light rail between BRT and a system like Skytrain.


Reality is, you have fallen for a flawed business case. 

This is what you get when you utilize flawed Business Cases, and choose an overly expensive technology with little benefit:

Fare hikes, and possible service cuts!

http://www.theprovince.com/Fare+hike+Evergreen+Line+Report/1960290/story.html


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> For anyone who is interested, the following is from the business case document that outlines the switch from light rail (LRT) to Skytrain (ALRT) as the chosen technology for the Coquitlam/Evergreen Line. I'll offer apologies that this does not concern BRT.
> 
> =========================================================
> 
> ...


Greg,I must agree with WotaN.First of all this document was prepared in a hmmm... strange way.I suppose someone was interested with choosing Skytrain;it's not so bad solution,because Vancouver is a big city and it's metro area has over 2 Mio. inhabitants,so really developed system of S-bahn (forgive mi using of german term,but it's short and popular in our area) is necessary (we all know,that Skytrain is more similar to S-bahn than to tram-type-light rail.What makes me feel that this document favours Skytrain?For example number of stations:someone mentioned that light rail had to have 12 stops while Skytrain - only 8!Less stops mean a higher average speed and higher attractiveness for passengers. Another bull shit:max. speed of LRT.60 km/h?!What kind of idiot produced that nonsense? Today's standard is minimum 70 km/h,Porto's Eurotram has 80 km/h and some LRV's used in North America even more (for Avanto in "city version" it is 55 Mph!).Of course their acceleration is also excellent.But if someone expects bigger flows of passengers on those lines,then in fact Skytrain is e better solution.Why?Because it's no big problem to add two or more middle sections (even motor sections) and it will ride as well as today (but it's capacity increases twice or more);try to do the same with a bus or trolleybus (that's why trolleybuses were rejected as being developmental) :lol:


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Regarding differences in the travel speed and the service frequency between the Skytrain and light rail options, I strongly suspect that these are dictated by a light rail alignment that features operation in the medians of city streets for a significant part of the route. A service frequency of 5 minutes is about the maximum that is accepted for light rail with traffic signal priority in order to avoid excessive interruption of traffic light cycles for motor vehicles. A service speed of 60 km/hr is consistent with the motor vehicle speed limit in an urban business district. Light rail lines operating on the medians of city streets are usually restricted to the same speed as the adjacent traffic lanes. One advantage that light rail does have over Skytrain is that the stations are simpler to build, which probably explains why the light rail option featured more stations. It should be noted that the positioning of stations for light rail can actually be a problem if city blocks are short as cross-streets in way of stations may have to be closed.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

In addition to the Vancouver Coquitlam/Evergreen Line study, there is one other study that I have come across that compares BRT, light rail, and heavy rail in the same corridor. That was a study for a connection between San Jose and the future terminus of the BART system at Warm Springs. The study is especially interesting because it included environmental impacts. Again, BRT was forecast to offer similar performance to light rail, but at much lower cost. An extension of BART to San Jose was the highest cost option, but offered far superior performance. The following are some of the numbers.

Average Weekday Ridership (Year 2025)
Busway BRT: 49,100
LRT: 56,600
BART: 87,200

New Trips (Year 2025)
Busway BRT: 35,600
LRT: 37,700
BART: 60,600

Capital Cost (2001 dollars in millions)
Busway BRT: $1,155
LRT: $1,514
BART: $3,710

Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost (2001 dollars in millions)
Busway BRT: $19.5
LRT: $41.8
BART: $63.0

Farebox Recovery
Busway BRT: 21.8%
LRT: 20.8%
BART: 64.4%

Cost per New Rider
Busway BRT: $11.40
LRT: $14.75
BART: $19.36

Daily Trips Removed from Roadways
Busway BRT: 30,791
LRT: 29,006
BART: 51,747

Daily Travel Time Savings (Hours Saved)
Busway BRT: 74,931
LRT: 71,117
BART: 153,913

Net Change in Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tons)
Busway BRT: -175,612
LRT: -121,813
BART: -151,208

Net Change in Air Pollutant Emissions (Tons)
Busway BRT: -773
LRT: -625
BART: -1,211

Net Change in Regional Energy Consumption (BTUs)
Busway BRT: -1,297,871
LRT: -1,016,665
BART: -1,482,662

Level of Noise/Vibration Impacts (Potential # Residential Impacts)
Busway BRT: 254
LRT: 707
BART: 321


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

In a short statement: BRT are crap. They are a political demagogic choice for appeasing poor voters, at least in developed industrialized countries.

Dozend of technical features that make BRT crap were singled out in this thread. Indeed, I should people in US (where popular initiative ballots are way common) should mobilize do ban governments spending taxpayer money on those systems. They have banned streetcars (probably misinformed) in Cleveland, now they should pass ballots propositions to ban BRT and dismantle BRTs that are already in place - or at least downgrade them to just an old, inefficient bus service.

It is better to have 10km subway or 30km tramway than 100km crap network of BRT with competes with cars for roadspace (intesad of offering an alternative), pollutes like a chimey, is noisy etc.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Rail transit is good as it provide ALTERNATIVES to road transit. Busways, however, are a kind of Third-World, poor country solution - duct tape to stop a bleeding. It will not work, escpecially in US, when buses are viewed as a lesser-vehicle used mainly by illegal immigrants and the extremely poor.

Good rail transit: T-Rex project, Salt Lake City light rail etc.

Bad transit: all BRTs in America, begining with Los Angeles's one. They steal space from cars, and are built solely because road capacity is already there. BRT would never be a choice if systems were compared as if no infra-structure exists and right-of-way for busways had to be bought from private landlords instead of stolen from car drivers.


----------



## Dan78 (Nov 17, 2009)

andrelot said:


> Rail transit is good as it provide ALTERNATIVES to road transit. Busways, however, are a kind of Third-World, poor country solution - duct tape to stop a bleeding. It will not work, escpecially in US, when buses are viewed as a lesser-vehicle used mainly by illegal immigrants and the extremely poor.
> 
> Good rail transit: T-Rex project, Salt Lake City light rail etc.
> 
> Bad transit: all BRTs in America, begining with Los Angeles's one. They steal space from cars, and are built solely because road capacity is already there. BRT would never be a choice if systems were compared as if no infra-structure exists and right-of-way for busways had to be bought from private landlords instead of stolen from car drivers.


I tend to agree. I think that a lot of the time, BRT (in the U.S. at least) is used as a stopgap to prevent rail transit projects from being realized. Instead of converting the Miami BRT to auto travel, why not HRT? Miami already has HRT infrastructure. Rail is shown to attract more riders than bus.

To go off on a small tangent, some "BRT" projects just aren't, anyway. If there's no dedicated ROW and stations, it's just a glorified bus. Buses (and to some extent, BRT) are easier to divest from and defund as well, as bus infrastructure can easily be converted to auto use (how convenient). When politicians try to sell you on the "fact" that buses are "more flexible", remind yourself what this probably means to them: "politically flexible", that is, while tearing up steel rails is a tough task, discontinuing bus routes isn't.

The fact the Pittsburgh's LRT attracts only marginally more riders than Miami's BRT isn't really a fair comparison; the core of population Miami is 25% larger than Pittsburgh and the metro area is about 60% larger.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

andrelot said:


> ...
> It is better to have 10km subway or 30km tramway than 100km crap network of BRT with competes with cars for roadspace (intesad of offering an alternative), pollutes like a chimey, is noisy etc.


Here we go again. 

So its better to serve 100.000 than let's say 100.000.000 ppl?
Have u heard about new technologies? electric/hybrid/gas and so on - buses?

Is it better to live in lets say Houston with only one crapy tram line serving few citizens and the rest using private cars than lets say Bogota with splendide BRT network serving millions of people there?


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

1.Don't the imigrants or poor people have right to travel in the city?
What reason is this?

2.Crapy build BRT are as crapy as crapy build LRT - and u have that in many us-cities, even in SLC the TRAX mix in the regular road trafic and - (what the heck!) is not street separated in downtown! But in States its really hard to create a good trnasportation system because of the density in cities. They are just built for cars.

3. There are good examples of BRt in the world. Search a bit. It doesnt hurt that much.
Start maybe with Curitiba or Bogota.


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

Dan78 said:


> I tend to agree. I think that a lot of the time, BRT (in the U.S. at least) is used as a stopgap to prevent rail transit projects from being realized. Instead of converting the Miami BRT to auto travel, why not HRT? Miami already has HRT infrastructure. Rail is shown to attract more riders than bus.


All good points, but I wanted to touch on this one. Miami does not have the money or the political will to extend MetroRail south down the bus way. The cost would be prohibitive. If there is expansion of the system it is likely to be LRT instead of more HRT, and likely going North or West rather than South down the busway. 

BRT is not the best form of transit (and rarely comes close to rail), but in this case the system is already in place and makes sense to keep it that way. It could definitely use a few million dollars to spruce it up and add nicer stops, TVM's, etc. The overall transit system in Miami is not too bad, I have used it many times. Expansion is needed, but not really in this area, IMHO. 

Steve


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Well, sometimes I catch myself thinking about what might have happened if planners of older days took this kind of approach:

- improve a Poney Express with more efficient water and graind depots, developing a new poney breed suitable to long trips in US Western INSTEAD OF building the Transcontinental Railroad

- revamp US routes, widen some dowtown crossings, optimize truck routes, build auxiliary lanes on steepest mountain passes only INSTEAD OF building the Interstate Highway System.

- increase efficiency of telegraph lines, add 'newer' technology to facilitate typing INSTEAD OF scrapping it altogether in favor of telephone landlines.

Sometimes, a cheap, convenient and 'efficient' solution prevent us from getting state-of-the art systems, even if they take longer to be in place. Majority of people use cars, indeed, a huge majority. Any system planned to offer an alternative ought to be, at least, as good as. Extended cars with chaffeurs, hard seats and bumpy rides (=buses) will not sufice this condition.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

We cannot compare Houston and Bogota. Bogota is a Third-World city in a violence-ravaged country - almost a low-intesity war zone.

Houston is one of the richest cities in America. If I'm not mistakenly reading data, more than 90% of morotized trips in Houston Metro Area are done by car. The other option is not walking 10 km or cycling 10 km - is getting into a car.

And drivers for whom driving costs is not such a big concern will not drop the car for a bus. I wouldn't.

Moreover, Houstoun is a very nice metro area with very interesting suburbs. There's no way you are going to have an efficient system to transport people around except if you use hybrid solutions like Park-and-Ride.

In sum: there's no need for extended PT coverage in Houton, because people there are capable of bear the costs of driving their cars


----------



## Dan78 (Nov 17, 2009)

andrelot said:


> We cannot compare Houston and Bogota. Bogota is a Third-World city in a violence-ravaged country - almost a low-intesity war zone.
> 
> Houston is one of the richest cities in America. If I'm not mistakenly reading data, more than 90% of morotized trips in Houston Metro Area are done by car. The other option is not walking 10 km or cycling 10 km - is getting into a car.
> 
> ...


As I recall, there were serious plans for a full subway (Metro) system in Houston in the early to mid 1980's (saw a news article once from 1982 or 1983), but then a new, sprawl-friendly mayor came in and killed the entire project.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> Pittsburgh operates a light rail system that is about 25 miles long and attracts about 26,000 passengers per day. Light rail advocates declare it a success. Miami operates a busway that is about 20 miles long and attracts about 20,000 passengers per day. A light rail advocate posts an article about it under the title "BRT Failure in Miami". To some, any light rail line will always be considered a success and any busway will always be considered a failure.


Greg,now you're writing just like an embittered BRT advocate;maybe could you be so kind and describe these two systems a little bit better?Because (as I remember) LRT line in Pittsburgh connects the city with the airport and it's going not only through the most populated areas;and where goes this Miami BRT line? I rememeber some manipulation done by Falubaz,it was about tram lines and BRT lines in Nantes;he compared.BRT line had about 20000 travels daily and the "weekest" tramline - ca. 35000.But there was one interesting thing:bus line had it's ending just behind city centre and the compared tramline ended it's "travel" after passing the city suburbs.So those comparison was a little bit unfair,wasn't it? And how it is about this case?


----------



## Dan78 (Nov 17, 2009)

Eurotram said:


> Greg,now you're writing just like an embittered BRT advocate;maybe could you be so kind and describe these two systems a little bit better?Because (as I remember) LRT line in Pittsburgh connects the city with the airport and it's going not only through the most populated areas;and where goes this Miami BRT line? I rememeber some manipulation done by Falubaz,it was about tram lines and BRT lines in Nantes;he compared.BRT line had about 20000 travels daily and the "weekest" tramline - ca. 35000.But there was one interesting thing:bus line had it's ending just behind city centre and the compared tramline ended it's "travel" after passing the city suburbs.So those comparison was a little bit unfair,wasn't it? And how it is about this case?


The Pittsburgh LRT doesn't connect the city with the airport at all (nowhere near it, actually), though there have been proposals to do this once the North Shore connector is completed. The Pittsburgh LRT only serves a few of the southern areas of the city proper and southern suburbs. The northern, west-central, and western areas of the city are completely unserved by LRT, as are the northern suburbs. For its size and area, the Pittsburgh LRT does a good job.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

Eurotram said:


> Greg,now you're writing just like an embittered BRT advocate;maybe could you be so kind and describe these two systems a little bit better?Because (as I remember) LRT line in Pittsburgh connects the city with the airport and it's going not only through the most populated areas;and where goes this Miami BRT line? I rememeber some manipulation done by Falubaz,it was about tram lines and BRT lines in Nantes;he compared.BRT line had about 20000 travels daily and the "weekest" tramline - ca. 35000.But there was one interesting thing:bus line had it's ending just behind city centre and the compared tramline ended it's "travel" after passing the city suburbs.So those comparison was a little bit unfair,wasn't it? And how it is about this case?


You may be correct;it is possible I thought of some other system (at least it's not my area),but you know that some BRT and LRT lines exist in different circumstances;and comparing them may cause really serious mistakes.Especially that I just took a look on the timetables of "T" and they are not impressive;lines 47L and 47S look quite well (but not excellent for mean of transport which sometimes pretends to be something more than a light rail),but remaining lines... look quite poor.In this case "T"'s results seem to be really good.


----------



## Dan78 (Nov 17, 2009)

Eurotram said:


> You may be correct;it is possible I thought of some other system (at least it's not my area),but you know that some BRT and LRT lines exist in different circumstances;and comparing them may cause really serious mistakes.Especially that I just took a look on the timetables of "T" and they are not impressive;lines 47L and 47S look quite well (but not excellent for mean of transport which sometimes pretends to be something more than a light rail),but remaining lines... look quite poor.In this case "T"'s results seem to be really good.


You're right about the frequencies of the "T" in Pittsburgh. The system is underbuilt there; it doesn't connect the downtown city core with the airport, University area (Pitt and CMU), Convention Center, train station (not since 1993), northern areas, etc. If it were expanded, it would be far more useful to the residents and visitors and greater train frequencies could be justified due to the increase in overall passenger traffic . (I miswrote in my above post, should have said EAST-central and EASTERN areas of the city instead of west-central and west).


----------



## tampasteve (Aug 8, 2007)

Eurotram said:


> where goes this Miami BRT line?


Essentially it goes through suburbs. It does connect points South to the MetroRail elevated metro system. It is along a former rail corridor, there has been talk of _eventually_ making the BRT line rapid transit, but it is unlikely to happen any time soon. The overall ridership of transit in Miami is not as high as one might hope, but it is also not nearly as bad as people might think it to be.

Steve


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

So the idea of allowing toll-paying drivers to use those lanes in smart public policy, right?


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

Falubaz said:


> Here we go again.


... with the same boring song hno:



Falubaz said:


> So its better to serve 100.000 than let's say 100.000.000 ppl?


Why not 100.000.000.000? :lol:



Falubaz said:


> Have u heard about new technologies? electric/hybrid/gas and so on - buses?


Have you heard how much Vancover had to pay for their hybrid buses?Is such a bus still competitive to a LRV?I wouldn't say so 



Falubaz said:


> Is it better to live in lets say Houston with only one crapy tram line serving few citizens and the rest using private cars than lets say Bogota with splendide BRT network serving millions of people there?


This "crapy" tram line will be extended (48 km of track till 2020).About Bogota I can say only one thing:it is ridiculous that there is no subway in 7 million people city! You know very well how many passengers travel by subway in such a big metro area (there can be no comparison with BRT) and now we have proof that Bogota is a third world's city (as somebody above wrote). In this case BRT isn't a new technology;it's a half measure,which (later or sooner) must be replaced by subway (as in your beloved Curitiba,which has choked with traffic jam and now is building a subway system).


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

The problem is that Bogota got it's sybway line shelved and nobody knows if they will be able to build it, but new BRT lines are u/c and will open soon (why? coz its fatser and cheaper to construct), improving transport. Also Curitiba lost its goverment subsidies and got problems. The 'third world thing' isnt a reason. It's only an offence. Don't name it again, coz it's shame! The so called 'third world cities' can teach the 'rich world' how to handle transportation problems with easy means, and so some of them learnt already a bit. Unfortunately some still stuck in the 'old-thinking-mode'. But this will change. Sooner or later but it has to change.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

del


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

You can build a third-world system in Maputo, Mozambique, or Tokyo, Japan. Buses are "lesser" solutions beucause they rely in what already exists (infrastructure for cars, automotive industry) to provide a less-than-theoretically-efficient solution for public transit. They just divert capacity from cars to buses, whilst ignoring most safety devices and practices that are used in cars, such as seat-belts, airbags etc.

On the other side, subways INCREASE capacity providing an additional alternative without making a dent on existing one.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

Falubaz said:


> The problem is that Bogota got it's sybway line shelved and nobody knows if they will be able to build it,


When they reach the same "level of choking" which Curitiba did,they will have no choice.And (because it's a capital of the country) they will finde enough money (you'll see,as a consequence remaining cities will pay for that ).



Falubaz said:


> but new BRT lines are u/c and will open soon (why? coz its fatser and cheaper to construct), improving transport.


No,it's a half measure again;city government simulate they doing their best,but they will wake up at the same moment when Curitiba did :bash:



Falubaz said:


> Also Curitiba lost its goverment subsidies and got problems.


And now this city has a huuuuuge problem,because they know very well they can develop their BRT system (they just announced it,you know that). 



Falubaz said:


> The 'third world thing' isnt a reason. It's only an offence. Don't name it again, coz it's shame! The so called 'third world cities' can teach the 'rich world' how to handle transportation problems with easy means, and so some of them learnt already a bit.


It's a fact.Have you ever heard,that poor people can't afford buying cheap things?And when you buy a cheap thing,you pay twice? They will realize it when it's too late.



Falubaz said:


> Unfortunately some still stuck in the 'old-thinking-mode'. But this will change. Sooner or later but it has to change.


:lol: Wow,look how many "old-thinking-mode"'s examples you have in USA and not only (in Canada,North Africa,even in Brasil;you remember,what is Brasilia building now? ).Yerusalem,Tel Aviv... Everywhere stupid people... in your oppinion.Maybe this oppinion isn't as correct as you think...?


----------



## allurban (Apr 7, 2006)

Eurotram said:


> In this case BRT isn't a new technology;it's a half measure,which (later or sooner) must be replaced by subway (as in your beloved Curitiba,which has choked with traffic jam and now is building a subway system).


Isnt that the point tho? Instead of going full measure with a MRT/Subway to a few places, go half-measure with a BRT/LRT/Rapid Tram that reaches more places and brings public transport to more people.

After a few years, identify the busiest line, followed by the next busiest, etc. and build MRT/subway as needed.

Seems like a cautious, logical compromise...and because everyone hates it that probably means that it is the correct approach...:lol: :cheers:

Cheers, m


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

allurban said:


> Isnt that the point tho? Instead of going full measure with a MRT/Subway to a few places, go half-measure with a BRT/LRT/Rapid Tram that reaches more places and brings public transport to more people.
> 
> After a few years, identify the busiest line, followed by the next busiest, etc. and build MRT/subway as needed.
> 
> ...


Yes,that (what you have written) looks nice and logical,but you don't take one important thing into consideration.Have you read the thread about BRT settled by Falubaz?Rather not,because it is in Polish.Falubaz in this thread tried to convince every reader,that cities (form small to few million people aglomerations) don't need light rail or even subway and fast city trains (S-bahn);he called off only the part about subway and he didn't do it before he realized that he went too far;but now I see he started preaching by the previous way again.I you read his thread about BRT,you could get to know that Falubaz is the clotted enemy of every tram-like-light rail;he calls even such as vehicles:








with the name: SLOWERS!Funny,isn't it? Vehicles with much better acceleration than every bus and not lower high speed than city-buses!You know why?Because he naver had them in his city and he never will (probably even trolleybuses;I talked to some guy who works on trolleybus project for Zielona Gora and this guy is almost sure that after 2010's election this project will "die")!But trams exist very close:in Gorzow Wielkopolski,capital of that voivodship and the first city-enemy of ZG!People in Gorzow love their trams (mayor of Gorzow tried to cut one of the tram lines,but he was affraid of citizens) and Falubaz (by the way,you know what the word "Falubaz" means?It's the name of his beloved speedway club;put in google words "Zielona Gora", "Gorzow Wielkopolski" and "nienawidzi" ("hates" in Polish) and first few results are connected with speedway!) "loves" trams as much as Gorzow (it's like with some guy,who's nick is "Manchester United";would you tell him after few beers that you love FC Liverpool?).And this is the source of his weird theories!
Of course he denies that explanation,but everyone can check above facts.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

This would be childish, like "if I can't have a lawn, don't dare to plant grass in your beach house".


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

andrelot said:


> This would be childish, like "if I can't have a lawn, don't dare to plant grass in your beach house".


This wouldn't be childish;this IS childish!


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

And all above that Eurotram said is childish also, coz it's simply a lie!
U cant check it coz the thread he's mentioning is in polish, that's why Eurotram is telling u crap, but in the polsih thread about BRT he tryes to say BRt sucks and im trying to say it's an alternative for old fashioned trams. My point was always: BRt can compete with trams, and not with S-Bahns or metros (which is smooth lie of Eurotram). There are cities that BRt is the only solution if there is not enough money to built metro, but u need a fast transportation. 
Bogota prooved, well planed BRT is cheaper and can reach equal ridership as lrt.
In other words its way more costefective.
The crap about speedway i wont comment, coz it's just not even childish, its simply pathetic of Eurotram making such stories up.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Well, I think you could sort your differences coming from a Polish-written forum in that forum 

Nonetheless, I do not support BRTs, as they are a kind of "put a duct tape to stop a bleeding". Bogota is a third-world city in the sense of majority of its population living in precarious conditions, and not having a car.

In most West countries, majority of households has a least one car. They can see trams, light rail, subways are competing systems, worth a try. Especially in North America, however, "bus-base" transit is usually seen as crap (which it indeed is), ridden mostly by the poor who cannot afford a car (<10% of US households), competing with cars for road space etc.

I guess we shouldn't buy BRT even if they are "cheap" and reach the biggest number of users for the same reason we don't build huge, 60-story, housing projects in downtown even if they are "the cheapest social housing" alternative.

As an (relatively) impoverished country, Colombia might have no room to play with. In Europe and US, cities do have. So, build a decent subway, tramways and, yes, use buses on night routes or feeder services, but don't rely on buses as your primary mean of transportation just because it has "the cheapest cost for km built".


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

Well, as for NA every kind of public transportation seems to fail, since NA-cities are built for cars. In Europe the BRT systems started already to run in many places (Nantes, Toulouse, Paris-petite couronnes, Valencia and so on) and more and more cities are planing to switch into this mode. In some cases even planned tram lines were changed. It's a myth about 'BRT and third-world'. It started there and it came out that it can work in rich countries too.


----------



## Rail_Serbia (May 29, 2009)

I wrote on  this toppic  about BRT and LRT.


> It is not true:
> - Costs of LRT are bigger, and LRT need more time for construction, but operating costs are lower (about 2 times)
> - LRT is more atractive for people, and get more passengers (in countries wnere car is not luxury)
> - LRT is more enviromental friendly, and spend lessen energy
> ...


I want to add, in any city subway, or LRT, or BRT, or tramway, or trolleybusses... are not same. 

When we talk about technical elite culture, the most of european and former USSR countries have it, and they don`t have BRT-s (there are few exclusive cases). But, what to talk to Bogota, which is technical third world. Evrybody can operate busses, but railway is science! In Belgrade architects have main word in planing, and that is the reason for a lot of traffic planing mistakes in Belgrade tramway, and Belgrade railway junction. (that is example for not respecting existing science).

Other thing is, decisions are always by politics, and engineers are respected more or lessen. Nationalists and make-up politicians are always against railways, tramway, LRT... Only green parties are always suppoters of railways. After them are democratic parties (which are not only democrats by name, like in Serbia), which promote public discusions and lower authority of polititions.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Could someone point out, precisely, which proposed or existent (in modern times, post-1980 please) tram networks were scrapped in favor of BRT?

I think American cities are great. It makes more sense to build a city that can accomodate not only its citzens but also its fleet, and suburbs are a better social living arrangement than cramped downtowns - but that is another discussion.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ When streetcar lines are closed in the United States, they are generally replaced with regular bus routes, not BRT. 

- A regular bus line was substituted when the Arborway branch of the Green Line in Boston was truncated in 1986. 

- Regular bus lines were substituted when service was suspended on streetcar Routes 15, 23, and 56 in Philadelphia in 1992. Route 15, Girard Avenue, was reopened as a streetcar line in 2005, but the other two lines remain closed. 

- A regular bus line was substituted when the Waterfront Streetcar service was shutdown in Seattle in 2005 so that the maintenance shed could be bulldozed to make way for a sculpture garden. 

I am not sure whether there was an official replacement for the Detroit Trolley that operated between 1976 and 2003. The line was short and the service was targeted toward tourists.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

andrelot said:


> Could someone point out, precisely, which proposed or existent (in modern times, post-1980 please) tram networks were scrapped in favor of BRT?


Commies tried to do that stupidity in the 70's,but after the oil crysis,they realised their mistake,and stopped busification of tramlines.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

andrelot said:


> Could someone point out, precisely, which proposed or existent (in modern times, post-1980 please) tram networks were scrapped in favor of BRT?


Scrapped?None.But I can tell you about few BRT lines,which were/will be conversed to tramlines


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

Falubaz said:


> And all above that Eurotram said is childish also, coz it's simply a lie!
> U cant check it coz the thread he's mentioning is in polish, that's why Eurotram is telling u crap,


What an impudence!I should rather say you're lucky they can't understand what you've written in BRT thread!But maybe not;maybe if I put it in some translator...



Falubaz said:


> but in the polsih thread about BRT he tryes to say BRt sucks


Bull shit:I wrote the COMPLEMENT (as I've written,this word is too difficult for you!) the other means of city transport (like in Nantes);and I can put some of my posts as proof!



Falubaz said:


> and im trying to say it's an alternative for old fashioned trams.


Old fashioned?








You've got some obsession about trams;and now I know the answer for some question:if you are able to write smth. sensible in this topic?Answer is:NO!
Now I see how painfull is that Gorzow has trams and you - not :lol:




Falubaz said:


> My point was always: BRt can compete with trams, and not with S-Bahns or metros (which is smooth lie of Eurotram).


Do you really want me to put some of your post as a proof that you lie? I can do it!Maybe not today,bacause thread has few tousands posts,but I will!



Falubaz said:


> There are cities that BRt is the only solution if there is not enough money to built metro, but u need a fast transportation.
> Bogota prooved, well planed BRT is cheaper and can reach equal ridership as lrt.
> In other words its way more costefective.


Bull shit again:half measure,for which they'll have to pay;and the price will be very high!



Falubaz said:


> The crap about speedway i wont comment, coz it's just not even childish, its simply pathetic of Eurotram making such stories up.


They can find it by themself;besides what can you say about somebody who takes name of the club as a nick?I would really take care what I say if somebody called "Lechia Gdańsk" or "Arka Gdynia".And hate between Falubaz and Stal Gorzow is proven;lets check on google


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

U have no arguments so u fight with my nickname? Ridiculous!



andrelot said:


> Could someone point out, precisely, which proposed or existent (in modern times, post-1980 please) tram networks were scrapped in favor of BRT?


None? As Eurotram said? 
Here u are:

Nantes, France: 










The yellow is BRT

They planned the 4th tram line but then they cancelled it and built BRT!
It's not even the 'third world' country so ... OMG! what happens? The rich use the third world ideas for themselves? This must be the end of our world!

Marseilles planed tram-extension was suspended and will be probably build as a BRT.









This map shows the plans. 3 tram and 3 BRT lines to be build, but only a part of the tramlines were finished and might be continue as a busways.

LA-Orange line (BRT) was the old railway line 

Almost finished Oxford BRT line was alos a heavy rail in the past.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

Nantes:


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Nantes' buses are crap, I'm sorry,huge mistake form their politicians. Sooner or later a government will come and transform the busway in a car lane.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

we'll see.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

As I noted in a previous post, streetcar lines in at least three U.S. cities have been shutdown and replaced with buses since 1980. 

- A regular bus line was substituted when the Arborway branch of the Green Line in Boston was truncated in 1986. 

- Regular bus lines were substituted when service was suspended on streetcar Routes 15, 23, and 56 in Philadelphia in 1992. Route 15, Girard Avenue, was reopened as a streetcar line in 2005, but the other two lines remain closed. 

- A regular bus line was substituted when the Waterfront Streetcar service was shutdown in Seattle in 2005 so that the maintenance shed could be bulldozed to make way for a sculpture garden. 

I am not sure whether there was an official replacement for the Detroit Trolley that operated between 1976 and 2003. The line was short and the service was targeted toward tourists.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

Toronto replaced a bus line with a streetcar line in 1997. Construction is underway to repalce a number of bus lines with LRT , with the first line to open in 2012.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

Falubaz said:


> U have no arguments so u fight with my nickname? Ridiculous!


I have a lot of arguments,but you (as usually) play you don't understand them.Don't worry:I got used to this :nuts:





Falubaz said:


> None? As Eurotram said?


The word "scrapped" is also too difficult for you?It means: RAILS WERE DISMANTLED,TRACK ASPHALTED -> BRT line!


Falubaz said:


> Here u are:
> 
> Nantes, France:
> 
> ...


And another bull shit of your style;line 4 is a typical example of "cream -skimming",because most part of this line is located in city centre (in contrast to some tram lines,which endings are in suburbs or even behind the city border.And in spite of this line 4 (when we found the last data) had a little bit more than a half of travellers which were reported for the "weakest" tram line 



Falubaz said:


> Marseilles planed tram-extension was suspended and will be probably build as a BRT.


In your dreams;and you write in again in spite of news which were shown in the meantime (as I remember) on the Railway Insider site (I mean this info about a huuuge money given for tramline extension programs in Marseille,Paris,Lyon etc;everything is in BRT thread)? :lol:



Falubaz said:


> This map shows the plans. 3 tram and 3 BRT lines to be build, but only a part of the tramlines were finished and might be continue as a busways.


As I said:"might" is not equal to "will be" 



Falubaz said:


> LA-Orange line (BRT) was the old railway line


Falubaz,users from North America konow better than us about realized (already and in clode futere) and planned extensions of LA light rail;so the news about LA light rail's death is really much exaggerated :lol:



Falubaz said:


> Almost finished Oxford BRT line was alos a heavy rail in the past.


Really old line :lol: In our country (as you know) they build in such a case a little bit less developed transport ways:bicycle paths :lol:


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> As I noted in a previous post, streetcar lines in at least three U.S. cities have been shutdown and replaced with buses since 1980.
> 
> - A regular bus line was substituted when the Arborway branch of the Green Line in Boston was truncated in 1986.
> 
> ...


Well,Philadelphia streetcar also seems to be targeted mostly toward tourists (still renovated old PCC trams.The only two cities with "serious" light rail systems (on the mentioned above list) are Boston (the same Green Line is the most heavily used light rail line in USA (as you can find,these are not my words  ) and Seattle (where trolleybuses were thrown out form the famous tunnel in favour of light rail) 


About scrapping of BRT in favour of light rail:
- the only BRT in Finnland will be conversed to a tramline;
- line H in Reims - conversion to tramline next year 
- Ottawa and Vancouver will say their BRT's "good bye" (Ottawa is going to convert them (in fact) to tramlines,Vancouver (as I remember) to Skytrain;
- some (maybe even all) lines of Hamburg's Hochbahn will be converted to tramlines...
I don't remember the other examples,I have to check old posts in BRT thread


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

Eurotram said:


> - Ottawa and Vancouver will say their BRT's "good bye" (Ottawa is going to convert them (in fact) to tramlines,Vancouver (as I remember) to Skytrain;


I wouldn't dare call our bus routes BRTs... more like limited-stop buses.


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

deasine said:


> I wouldn't dare call our bus routes BRTs... more like limited-stop buses.


But in some publications they are called so (for example lines - as I remember numbers - 99B, 97B)


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

Eurotram said:


> But in some publications they are called so (for example lines - as I remember numbers - 99B, 97B)


B for B-Line. The first B-Line, the 99, was on Broadway, hence the "B." That being said, many of the B-Lines do have HOV Bus Lanes during rush hours, but it's the lane by the curb, which hasn't really improved bus speeds.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Eurotram said:


> Well,Philadelphia streetcar also seems to be targeted mostly toward tourists (still renovated old PCC trams.The only two cities with "serious" light rail systems (on the mentioned above list) are Boston (the same Green Line is the most heavily used light rail line in USA (as you can find,these are not my words  ) and Seattle (where trolleybuses were thrown out form the famous tunnel in favour of light rail)
> ...


You have some misinformation.

- Philadelphia has five Subway-Surface trolley lines that share a transit tunnel through downtown plus two Red Arrow suburban trolley lines. There is also the Norristown line, which is generally classified as light rail though it operates on third-rail power. This is in addition to the Girard Avenue trolley line that uses vintage PCCs. It is also in addition to the three heavy rail subway lines that serve Philadelphia.

- Trolley buses no longer operate in the Seattle transit tunnel due to incompatibilities with the overhead wire system for light rail; however, hybrid buses do still operate through the transit tunnel. The buses will continue to operate in the transit tunnel for several years until the light rail extension to the University of Washington is completed.

As noted in a previous post, Seattle closed the Waterfront Trolley line because money couldn't be found to replace the maintenance shed. This was done at the same time that the city was planning the South Lake Union Streetcar. Much of the money to build the South Lake Union Streetcar came from a developer who was trying to sell real estate in the area. This leads one to wonder whether that line will also close at some point in the future due to a lack of money to maintain the line.

One of the questions asked in this thread is whether BRT has ever been substituted for a light rail plan. An interesting instance in which this has occurred is Las Vegas. Transit mode studies usually assume that BRT would operate on exactly the same route as light rail. Las Vegas looked at it differently. They considered that the lower cost of BRT would permit them to build a much more extensive system with local bus routes upgraded to merge onto the central spine of the BRT system with the result that a single-seat ride could be provided from distant neighborhoods to downtown. If the spine were built as light rail, passengers from distant neighborhoods would have to ride a bus to the light rail station and transfer. The plan was marketed under the slogan "An Octopus, Not a Snake".


----------



## Eurotram (Oct 9, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> You have some misinformation.
> 
> - Philadelphia has five Subway-Surface trolley lines that share a transit tunnel through downtown plus two Red Arrow suburban trolley lines. There is also the Norristown line, which is generally classified as light rail though it operates on third-rail power. This is in addition to the Girard Avenue trolley line that uses vintage PCCs. It is also in addition to the three heavy rail subway lines that serve Philadelphia.


You're correct,but when I took a closer look over SEPTA,then I got to some conclusions:
- trolley (or lets call them just tram) lines look a little bit strangen the one hand on all the lines we have good or very good frequency;on the other hand most of brigades are served by single Kawasaki cars (am I right?If not,then correct me);NHSL is served by longer cars,but it's another category;
- "the best" bus line (SEPTA data about number of travellers) goes every 7-8 minutes;forgive me,but when I compare it to one of the "common" bus lines in Gdynia (Tricity,PL) going in peak hours every 6 minutes or many lines in Warsaw (it's justified by number of people living in Philadelphia and it's metro area),then I can just smile.So there we have only two possibilities:
1) most of Philadelphians choose their own cars;
2) most of mentioned above choose their own cars AND SUBWAY LINES (which is possible,especially about the MFL line going every 6 minutes).
Which answer is correct?  



greg_christine said:


> - Trolley buses no longer operate in the Seattle transit tunnel due to incompatibilities with the overhead wire system for light rail; however, hybrid buses do still operate through the transit tunnel. The buses will continue to operate in the transit tunnel for several years until the light rail extension to the University of Washington is completed.
> 
> As noted in a previous post, Seattle closed the Waterfront Trolley line because money couldn't be found to replace the maintenance shed. This was done at the same time that the city was planning the South Lake Union Streetcar. Much of the money to build the South Lake Union Streetcar came from a developer who was trying to sell real estate in the area. This leads one to wonder whether that line will also close at some point in the future due to a lack of money to maintain the line.


Anyway:
- days (months,years) of buses in transit tunnel are also counted;
- maybe the SLUS will be developed as the other lines;now on SLUS you have there rather short Skoda trams and on the other tracks:








even in multiple traction.So... 



greg_christine said:


> One of the questions asked in this thread is whether BRT has ever been substituted for a light rail plan. An interesting instance in which this has occurred is Las Vegas. Transit mode studies usually assume that BRT would operate on exactly the same route as light rail. Las Vegas looked at it differently. They considered that the lower cost of BRT would permit them to build a much more extensive system with local bus routes upgraded to merge onto the central spine of the BRT system with the result that a single-seat ride could be provided from distant neighborhoods to downtown. If the spine were built as light rail, passengers from distant neighborhoods would have to ride a bus to the light rail station and transfer. The plan was marketed under the slogan "An Octopus, Not a Snake".


Hmmm... Who made that decision?Because I've read that light rail seemed to more attract people.Anyway they already have a monorail,whoich can be developed in future.We'll see


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

Monorail in Vegas is a crap, coz it's going only to the big casinos, nobody takes monorail in Vegas but tourists, and they have to pay a lot for a stupid ride from one casino to another.

And the slogan from Vegas is just exactly what is my point here: "an octopus not a snake".


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

I woudl exclude heavily suburbanized metropolitan areas in US because dinamics, demands and target are fairly different than in Europe and some more dense metro areas in North America.

(note: I have nothings against "heavily suburbanized" metros. Indeed, I hope I can relocate to one of them after I finish my Ph.D in Europe, as I just love suburbs, big houses, private space etc.)


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ This is the reality of life in the United States. The type of housing we have is driven by market demand. There is a market among young adults and older retired people for housing in densely populated downtown areas; however, families with children tend to prefer houses on quiet streets with private backyards so that the children have safe places to play. I have cousins in Athens and I see that they prefer the same. They all used to live in the urban core. Now that they have children, they all have either moved to quieter suburban areas or have purchased weekend homes well outside the city. Urban planners deride this as sprawl, but that is the way that people prefer to live.

Returning to the subject of BRT, the outer areas of most U.S. cities have a population density too low to be fully served by rail lines. The reality is that buses are the only affordable option to provide transit access for many areas. If the U.S. ever did get to the point where private autos were no longer viable due to global warming or fuel shortages, the only option would be networks of bus lines.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Electric car + nuclear powerplants = no global warming risk.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

ParadiseLost said:


> No this is simply wrong and stupid.
> Buses are more dangerous than motorcycles in the same way that sitting in your couch without a helmet is more dangerous than going skydiving with a parachute.


http://www.thestar.com/news/article...charged-after-riders-hurt-in-sudden-stop?bn=1

Passengers injured because the driver stopped too quickly. Not an uncommon occurrence, unfortunately. You can huff and puff, and throw insults all you want, but the fact remains: buses are more dangerous to ride due to their design, and lack of safety features that cannot be built-in due to costs. Cars have built in safety features that mitigate the dangers, and motorcyclists are required to wear helmets, and protective clothing(In Canada, anyways)

And I say it again,. No one is thinking about the dangers of riding a bus, why would they? It’s an interesting argument, but it’s not going to deter anyone from riding a bus.


----------



## ParadiseLost (Feb 1, 2011)

JustinB said:


> http://www.thestar.com/news/article...charged-after-riders-hurt-in-sudden-stop?bn=1
> 
> Passengers injured because the driver stopped too quickly. Not an uncommon occurrence, unfortunately. You can huff and puff, and throw insults all you want, but the fact remains: buses are more dangerous to ride due to their design, and lack of safety features that cannot be built-in due to costs. Cars have built in safety features that mitigate the dangers, and motorcyclists are required to wear helmets, and protective clothing(In Canada, anyways)


........ So you are quoting anecdotal stories as evidence now?
Are you SERIOUS? I mean your whole premise is ridiculous to begin with
but at least post some stats to support it. I've tried to find them but it's hard.
I'm 99.99% sure riding a bus is safer per passenger mile as far as rider traffic accidents/fatalities go, and 200% sure they are safer than motorcycles. Sure it might be true that in a city like Detroit there's a non negligible chance you will get stabbed on the bus or something (just making up an example for sake of argument) but that doesn't have anything to do with general modal safety.

edit: I did find something, it's not perfect but it's a million times better than anything you've come up with so far (which is basically nothing)
http://airfare.michaelbluejay.com/modes.html#ev
Bus fatality rate per billion miles is 2.0
car is 7.2

We all know motorcycles are even more dangerous for the rider.
Hopefully this shuts down this whole ridiculous discussion but I do hope you find some even better stats (none of which will say cars are safer for the riders than buses).

Cheers


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

> ........ So you are quoting anecdotal stories as evidence now?
> Are you SERIOUS? I mean your whole premise is ridiculous to begin with
> but at least post some stats to support it. I've tried to find them but it's hard.
> I'm 99.99% sure riding a bus is safer per passenger mile as far as rider traffic accidents/fatalities go, and 200% sure they are safer than motorcycles. Sure it might be true that in a city like Detroit there's a non negligible chance you will get stabbed on the bus or something (just making up an example for sake of argument) but that doesn't have anything to do with general modal safety.
> ...


You clearly do not seem to get it. Stats mean nothing in this case, because the number of auto drivers are far, far higher than transit users in the US and Canada, which would skew any data. You do not need to show stats to conclude buses could be more dangerous than cars in an accident.

1)Riding a bus, you have no seatbelt. Any impact, and you're going flying.
2)Standing in a moving vehicle means you have less control over your movement. Again, any impact to the vehicle, and you'll flying. Hence the purpose of the article, a hard brake injured bus passengers.
3) Because of their design, buses cannot have safety features such as seatbelts, and airbags installed. For that reason, chances of injury could be higher than in a car. 
You are missing the point that WHEN AN ACCIDENT, OR INCIDENT occurs(impact, hard brake, swerve), the risk of injury in a bus is greater than a car that has required safetly features. Do you get it now? I doubt it. 

You do not stats to show cars have more safety features than buses. It's simple fact.

A bus brakes hard, people go tumbling, a auto driver brakes hard, the seatbelt stops his momentum.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

^^So the point is: lets ban all buses? Coz there might be one or two stupid person who doesnt now that it's smart to hold the handrails when standing on the bus.


----------



## JustinB (Aug 12, 2008)

The point is, you BRT fanboys are easily wound up, and LRT is better!

I guess I did not make myself clear, even if buses are more dangerous than cars, It's not going to stop people from riding the bus. I use the bus every single day, and I do not think about the dangers. No one does! (until the bus crashes, of course)


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

JustinB said:


> You clearly do not seem to get it. Stats mean nothing in this case, because the number of auto drivers are far, far higher than transit users in the US and Canada, which would skew any data. You do not need to show stats to conclude buses could be more dangerous than cars in an accident.
> 
> 1)Riding a bus, you have no seatbelt. Any impact, and you're going flying.
> 2)Standing in a moving vehicle means you have less control over your movement. Again, any impact to the vehicle, and you'll flying. Hence the purpose of the article, a hard brake injured bus passengers.
> ...


You are the one who clearly does not get it. It's on a per (billion) miles basis. How unsafe the design of a bus is in your mind does not matter, what matters how unsafe it REALLY is, which can easily be checked with facts and figures, as provided before.

The conclusion you should reach, knowing what you now know: even though buses would seem to be less safe when looking at their design (no seatbelts, etc.), they AREN'T less safe than cars, but in fact SAFER.

As a motorcyclist myself, I am appaled at your ignorance for thinking a motorcycle is safer than a bus, even if just looking at it's design. A bus has a large protective casing for you. Even though you might move IN the bus during a crash, it is far less bad than me being thrown into a car while wearing my helmet.


----------



## ParadiseLost (Feb 1, 2011)

JustinB said:


> You clearly do not seem to get it. Stats mean nothing in this case, because the number of auto drivers are far, far higher than transit users in the US and Canada, which would skew any data.


You clearly do not understand statistics.

As for the rest of your post the only thing that might prove is that cars have more safety features than buses. But IT DOESN'T PROVE that cars are SAFER than buses. By the same token the space shuttle has far more safety features than cars. Are you going to claim space shuttles are thus safer?

You have provided no evidence for the silly assertion that cars and motorcycles are safer than buses. And in fact the contrary is true as my stats have pointed out. These stats are per passenger mile, so the total number of cars or buses or riders or distance is IRRELEVANT, unless the number of transit riders would be so small as to be statistically insignificant which they are nowhere close to.

I know it takes a big man to admit they were wrong, but I suggest you step up. The statistics leave no room for interpretation or discussion on this issue. In fact it is widely known that buses and transit are safer than cars I think most people know this (this doesn't prove anything of course, the stats do).

edit:
*Silly Walks:*
Thank you, I think you've explained it to our friend here just about as well as I have.

*JustinB:*
There's no shame in being wrong, dogmatically holding on to a wrong viewpoint after having seen the evidence that said viewpoint is simply wrong is rather silly though so I hope you will accept the statistics. The fact that buses and other forms of mass transit are safer than private transit per passenger mile is not controversial at all and widely known.
And I am not a bus fanboy, I like trains and heavy rapid transit. I never take the bus here in Holland because my bicycle is simply a lot faster for intra city travel in our small and medium sized cities. BRT is another animal though (not really very useful to my country though).


----------



## State of the Union (Jul 12, 2010)

JustinB said:


> You clearly do not seem to get it. Stats mean nothing in this case, because the number of auto drivers are far, far higher than transit users in the US and Canada, which would skew any data. You do not need to show stats to conclude buses could be more dangerous than cars in an accident.
> 
> 1)Riding a bus, you have no seatbelt. Any impact, and you're going flying.
> 2)Standing in a moving vehicle means you have less control over your movement. Again, any impact to the vehicle, and you'll flying. Hence the purpose of the article, a hard brake injured bus passengers.
> ...


Do you I have to teach you physics too? Seriously, it's disturbing how people assume how things act instead of researching how this work in real life.

The people won't go flying in a bus. Due to higher mass of the bus, it will have a much lower change in velocity due to conservation of momentum. A lower change in velocity means the people in the bus wouldn't go flying because the bus wouldn't change much in speed in relation to the speed of the people inside it.

Look at this video. Which would you rather be in?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5vqyoV264

Seriously, these transit obstructionists need to cut the "no seat belts, people will go flying" bullshit. Really you only make yourself look like dumbasses to those of us who actually know physics.

However, as in the case of your quote in my sig, I do agree with you about BRT, but I guess not for the same reason. I hate BRT because cities use it as a cheap-ass replacement for rail, not because I think a bus is unsafe.


----------



## Klausenburg (Jul 25, 2007)

*MISC | All about Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)*

*This thread is dedicated to technical, economical, historical or any other issues related to this type of transport.*


----------



## Klausenburg (Jul 25, 2007)

mopc said:


> *History *- BRT systems were invented in Brazil in the 1970s. Here is the cover of the Scientific American magazine of March 1996, dedicated to the Curitiba BRT system, the world's pioneer BRT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed.


----------



## twentyfivetacos (Jun 11, 2011)

BRT might be a sensible solution in third world countries where the construction and operating costs are much lower but not in first world countries. Brisbane's busway for example has been a complete disaster. Within a decade of it being built it was at capacity and the extremely high operating costs have meant that there had to be massive service cuts for the rest of the bus network. Most of Brisbane is served by buses which only run once an hour or worse and as a result overall bus patronage has declined. To make matters worse the cost of building much of the busway is even higher than rail. The latest busway extension cost nearly a billion dollars despite being less than a kilometer long. 


Brisbane's inefficient busway. Most people choose to walk because it's faster.










Compare that to Perth's Mandurah train line. Trains travelling at 130km/h overtaking traffic.


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

It only means that BRT was inappropriate technology for one given place.


----------



## Klausenburg (Jul 25, 2007)

XAN_ said:


> It only means that BRT was inappropriate technology for one given place.


Indeed. And that's because the planners probably haven't a complete understanding of economical aspects of different public transport solutions. And it seems tha tin many cities around the globe the planning of transport and the solutions for public transport are chosen to be "fancy" rather then practical.


----------



## intelligentBG (Jun 10, 2008)

I am wondering how the driver stops the bus so close to the platform. Are there any technical appliances or it depends of driver’s ability? It seems that a lot of time must be spending to locate the bus exactly next to the platform.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

^^I was traveling on several BRt around the globe and there is no delay because of "locate the bus exactly next to the platform". for the passanger it feels like it had rails. 
i bet it's just the drivers. That's their job, they know how to approach the platforms.


----------



## NickABQ (Jun 6, 2007)

intelligentBG said:


> I am wondering how the driver stops the bus so close to the platform. Are there any technical appliances or it depends of driver’s ability? It seems that a lot of time must be spending to locate the bus exactly next to the platform.


The video posted in the OP explains the guiding process for buses pulling up to the platform. :cheers:


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Klausenburg said:


> Indeed. And that's because the planners probably haven't a complete understanding of economical aspects of different public transport solutions. And it seems tha tin many cities around the globe the planning of transport and the solutions for public transport are chosen to be "fancy" rather then practical.


Exactly. With just a minimal amount of data, city planners would be able to tell whether certain corridors would require bus, BRT, tram, LRT or metro (etc.). If the prognosis is in the high BRT ranges, city planners should build to allow easy modification to LRT.


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

Silly_Walks said:


> Exactly. With just a minimal amount of data, city planners would be able to tell whether certain corridors would require bus, BRT, tram, LRT or metro (etc.). If the prognosis is in the high BRT ranges, city planners should build to allow easy modification to LRT.


Unless they are cheapskates. Than they build BRT instead of LRT, and LRT instead of metro.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

twentyfivetacos said:


> BRT might be a sensible solution in third world countries where the construction and operating costs are much lower but not in first world countries. Brisbane's busway for example has been a complete disaster. Within a decade of it being built it was at capacity and the extremely high operating costs have meant that there had to be massive service cuts for the rest of the bus network. Most of Brisbane is served by buses which only run once an hour or worse and as a result overall bus patronage has declined. To make matters worse the cost of building much of the busway is even higher than rail. The latest busway extension cost nearly a billion dollars despite being less than a kilometer long.
> 
> 
> Brisbane's inefficient busway. Most people choose to walk because it's faster.


They don't have all to be like this










(Belo Horizonte's new system)




Moreover you really have to explain us how a 1-km bus lane can cost 1 billion dollars. Brisbane's seems more like a case of deep incompetence and mismanagement and no bearing on the BRT modality per se.


----------



## simval (Feb 3, 2014)

I would say about Bus Rapid Transit that it is an appropriate for the developing world, but is a mistake for the developed world.

In terms of costs, BRT tends to have lower capital costs, however, as each bus has less capacity than LRT or metro trains has, the result is that it requires a lot more man-hours to run a BRT line than an LRT or metro line, it requires a lot more drivers and mechanics. So BRTs have low capital costs, but high labor requirements.

In the developing world, capital is lacking, but labor is cheap, so BRT is fine there. But in the developed world, it's the opposite, labor is very expensive and capital is abundantly available. Therefore, in the long run, rail transit is less expensive to run in the developed world (and would also become cheaper in developing countries as the country becomes richer and labor becomes more expensive).

Another issue is rider preference. The preference for rail transit is well documented, and rail-based forms of transit tend to attract 30-50% more riders than bus-based transit, with the same operational characteristics. But that's an issue only when most people have cars. In the developing world, in general only a minority of people have cars, so most transit users are what is frequently called a captive market, they don't really have an alternative ready to go.

Also, BRTs need a lot of space to match the capacity of LRTs or subways, the Transmilenio for instance is 20 meters wide (65-70 feet) because it needs passing lanes in each direction to reach its capacity. In many European, Asian and even North American cities, you could hardly find such a large road to appropriate for a BRT like the Transmilenio. Bogota could do it because the authoritarian government had spent a lot of its money building extremely large roads (very questionable use of funds considering how few of the population have cars BTW).

BRTs could be appropriate in the developed world as a starter rapid transit system in cities that:

1- Have an excess amount of very large roads that they could shift from cars to buses, roads that are close enough to actual developments to warrant something like this.
2- Have pretty low transit ridership and low density developments, justifying a trunk and branch system (where feeder buses just hop on the main trunk and continue to central destinations instead of simply stopping at stations to feed the main line).


----------

