Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 16, 2009
Transportation Bus Rapid Transit
Posted by Will Kelley-Kamp on Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Bus Rapid Transit (or BRT) is much maligned by fixed-rail transit nerds. But on November 29, BRT will become become a reality when the first line opens.
In Snohomish County.
While Seattle made waves with the opening of Sound Transit's first light rail line, Community Transit's Swift BRT line will introduce high-speed bus transit to Washington state:
Swift will serve a 17-mile stretch of the Highway 99/Evergreen Way/Rucker Avenue/Pacific Avenue corridor between Aurora Village Transit Center in the south and Everett Station in the north. [...]There are more than 50 existing local bus stops on this route in each direction, however to speed service, Swift will serve only 12 stops each way. Every Swift station has a local bus stop nearby, so passengers wishing to reach other locations can easily transfer to local buses.
Swift stations are located about 1 to 2 miles apart. While more stations could be added in the future, these locations were selected because they serve popular destinations and/or transit connection points.
King County Metro's own BRT system, RapidRide, doesn't go into effect until 2010, with the first Seattle line opeing in 2011. With Metro's budget bleeding red ink, some folks are skeptical that all five RapidRide routes will open on schedule.
1
Hey, just spent 30 mins waiting at 3rd and Pike for the bus (car is getting it's 30K check up). Seriously, give me a fucking train or tram instead of the scum/bum infested bus scene down at 3rd and Pike.
2
County Exec. Sue Cuntchinson will make sure that this will be cut from the budget as well as all funding to public clinics. I mean those two things represent Socialism and Abortions!!
Praise Jesus!!
Praise Jesus!!
3
And they're not that fast either; we could get faster buses quicker if we just took the top 12 routes in Seattle and ran special super duper express buses on them with super limited stops. Aiming for that frequency that means "rapid transit." And show these with colors on a map, that Metro map monstrosity is impossible to use easily (note to Metro: use different colors for different routes, we can't easily find the route numbers sprinkled hither and yon on the map!).
oh wait this would solve problems immediately without 3 years of constructing computer systems and bus bulbs and other stuff, so it "just can't be done."
oh wait this would solve problems immediately without 3 years of constructing computer systems and bus bulbs and other stuff, so it "just can't be done."
4
@1 Portland built a gondola that carries about 2000 pphpd for about $50 million a mile. It goes from the waterfront up a huge hill and over a freeway.
It's from Doppler or some company like that.
This would be a cheap, quick solution so in Seattle it "just can't be done," although obviously Cap Hill and Sodo-Junction would be good candidates.
It's from Doppler or some company like that.
This would be a cheap, quick solution so in Seattle it "just can't be done," although obviously Cap Hill and Sodo-Junction would be good candidates.
5
Take that, suburb-haters.
This goes very close to my house. Now all I need is a reason to go to Everett and I'll be gold.
This goes very close to my house. Now all I need is a reason to go to Everett and I'll be gold.
7
Seattle's streetcar network is controlled by the city of Seattle instead of county or regional agencies that bleed money due to the suburbs. They're much cleaner and more reliable than buses. The SLUT is worthless for most people because it doesn't go anywhere, but it's a pleasure to ride if you use it. The BUTT will actually be useful and will be built next year.
Blame Nick Licata for the other three lines not going forward. Vote McGinn, O'Brien, Bagshaw, and Israel if you want an in-city alternative to buses.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/st…
BUTT - ID, First Hill, Capitol Hill
FABQueen - CD, ID, downtown, Belltown, Queen Anne
SLUT B - Downtown, SLU, Westlake, Ballard
SLUT U - Downtown, SLU, Eastlake, UWMC, U District
Blame Nick Licata for the other three lines not going forward. Vote McGinn, O'Brien, Bagshaw, and Israel if you want an in-city alternative to buses.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/st…
BUTT - ID, First Hill, Capitol Hill
FABQueen - CD, ID, downtown, Belltown, Queen Anne
SLUT B - Downtown, SLU, Westlake, Ballard
SLUT U - Downtown, SLU, Eastlake, UWMC, U District
10
Are they building dedicated right of way for the buses, lanes that cannot easily be repurposed for single occupancy vehicles? If not, it's just another express bus. Those don't drive land use changes because they're so trivially cancelled/rerouted/etc. You want density, you have to put in real infrastructure to prove that you mean it.
11
@gfish: the lanes are not exclusive right-of-way, but are BAT (business access/transit) lanes which allow only transit and vehicles turning right. They would be difficult but not impossible to re-purpose, if WSDOT and elected officials put their minds to it. However, the local electeds strongly support both the BAT lanes and Swift, so this is highly unlikely.
The stations are major investments, permanent, and can not be repurposed, meaning that Swift can not be cancelled or rerouted. This is, in fact, real infrastructure, and has the potential to change land use along SR99 over the long term.
The stations are major investments, permanent, and can not be repurposed, meaning that Swift can not be cancelled or rerouted. This is, in fact, real infrastructure, and has the potential to change land use along SR99 over the long term.
12
Don’t settle for Bus Rapid Transit! Light rail is far superior to BRT for several reasons:
1. Light rail vehicles are less expensive in the long run, with useful lives of 40 to 60 years. Reconditioned LRVs from the 1950s are still running in San Francisco and Philadelphia. Where do you see a 60 year old bus in regular service?
2. Light rail vehicles have better acceleration than buses do, and can run a route much faster than buses. This means that you need fewer LRVs and fewer drivers to cover the same route.
3. Light rail vehicles can run in much narrower lanes than buses can, so they take up less space. This is especially important in crowded urban areas.
4. Light rail vehicles only use energy when they are accelerating. When they decelerate, the momentum is turned back into electric energy. When they’re at rest, their motors use no energy at all. Most buses use energy continually, whether they are accelerating, decelerating, or standing still.
5. Light rail vehicles give a smoother, bump-free ride far superior to the bouncing around bus passengers are subject to.
6. Operating expenses for light rail vehicles are significantly less than for buses, according to the Federal Transit Administration's 2001 National Transit Database. Boston’s light rail line had costs of $1.25 per trip vs. $2.04 for buses. If you want the figures expressed as costs per passenger mile, Boston spent $0.51 for LRVs and $0.71 for buses.
7. In city after city (St. Louis, Denver, Phoenix, Boston, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas ……) people prefer light rail to buses. Ridership on the entire transit system increases when even a single light rail line is opened.
8. Light rail stations often spur development around them that doesn’t happen around bus rapid transit stations.
For extensive information about the benefits of light rail, go to http://www.lightrailnow.org.
More...
1. Light rail vehicles are less expensive in the long run, with useful lives of 40 to 60 years. Reconditioned LRVs from the 1950s are still running in San Francisco and Philadelphia. Where do you see a 60 year old bus in regular service?
2. Light rail vehicles have better acceleration than buses do, and can run a route much faster than buses. This means that you need fewer LRVs and fewer drivers to cover the same route.
3. Light rail vehicles can run in much narrower lanes than buses can, so they take up less space. This is especially important in crowded urban areas.
4. Light rail vehicles only use energy when they are accelerating. When they decelerate, the momentum is turned back into electric energy. When they’re at rest, their motors use no energy at all. Most buses use energy continually, whether they are accelerating, decelerating, or standing still.
5. Light rail vehicles give a smoother, bump-free ride far superior to the bouncing around bus passengers are subject to.
6. Operating expenses for light rail vehicles are significantly less than for buses, according to the Federal Transit Administration's 2001 National Transit Database. Boston’s light rail line had costs of $1.25 per trip vs. $2.04 for buses. If you want the figures expressed as costs per passenger mile, Boston spent $0.51 for LRVs and $0.71 for buses.
7. In city after city (St. Louis, Denver, Phoenix, Boston, Philadelphia, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas ……) people prefer light rail to buses. Ridership on the entire transit system increases when even a single light rail line is opened.
8. Light rail stations often spur development around them that doesn’t happen around bus rapid transit stations.
For extensive information about the benefits of light rail, go to http://www.lightrailnow.org.
13
@11: I give it four years at the outside before Eyman files an initiative to turn those into general purpose single-occupancy lanes.
14
@12 - agree with all of your reasons, they're all great, but @13 has nailed the fundamental reason fixed rail is superior to BRT - it can't easily be converted into something cars use.
To create dedicated lanes for BRT costs roughly on par with what creating dedicated ROW for rail costs, but BRT advocates never mention the dedicated ROW costs, they just assume that using the street is free.
To create dedicated lanes for BRT costs roughly on par with what creating dedicated ROW for rail costs, but BRT advocates never mention the dedicated ROW costs, they just assume that using the street is free.
15
Fuckers. BRT lanes are re-purposed general vehicle lanes, as someone else noted above. Go to Lynnwood, and drive up-and-down 99 to see them. The far right lane is a bus-only BRT lane. Automobiles are only allowed in them to make right turns at the next intersection, so for all practical purposes the buses are running unimpeded.
Furthermore, the traffic signals have been adapted to give the BRT lanes more green time, and to give right-turning vehicles a preferential green arrow so they can turn right and get the hell out of the way of the bus. The signals also detect buses as they approach, and can update their timing to give the buses preferential treatment.
And then there's the no overhead catenary wires. Goddamn, but those are ugly. I was driving through s. Seattle yesterday around MLK way. Goddamn, who thought a fuckton of poles and wires was aesthetically more pleasing than monorail pillars? Seriously.
Oh, and one more thing- during utility work and pavement repair, buses can be re-routed around the work zone as needed. Try that with fixed rail, fuckers.
Furthermore, the traffic signals have been adapted to give the BRT lanes more green time, and to give right-turning vehicles a preferential green arrow so they can turn right and get the hell out of the way of the bus. The signals also detect buses as they approach, and can update their timing to give the buses preferential treatment.
And then there's the no overhead catenary wires. Goddamn, but those are ugly. I was driving through s. Seattle yesterday around MLK way. Goddamn, who thought a fuckton of poles and wires was aesthetically more pleasing than monorail pillars? Seriously.
Oh, and one more thing- during utility work and pavement repair, buses can be re-routed around the work zone as needed. Try that with fixed rail, fuckers.
16
I want this Swift system to work well, because BRT seems like a good way to serve this corridor.
HOWEVER. You can't pretend that restriping the right-hand lanes and building ITS-heavy stops is the same thing as creating dedicated right of way. Comparing BRT to light rail or some other system *cough monorail cough* without doing a side-by-side comparison of capital costs for dedicated ROW is intellectually dishonest.
HOWEVER. You can't pretend that restriping the right-hand lanes and building ITS-heavy stops is the same thing as creating dedicated right of way. Comparing BRT to light rail or some other system *cough monorail cough* without doing a side-by-side comparison of capital costs for dedicated ROW is intellectually dishonest.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS