June 29, 2006
Bullshit Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit as an alternative to actual mass transit sucks. It's what anti-transit people offer to cities to ridicule their efforts at light rail or monorails. "You want to move people around without cars, eh? How about this ridiculous thing, then? You can't say no! It isn't a car! Look, it can move people from poor inner suburbs to job sites just as well as elevated trains and it costs nothing so in two years when you shut the hell up and buy another car we can just sell off the buses and the right of ways we grabbed and be done with it." It's like a game of transit chicken with each side wondering how the other could possibly be serious. But then, a few of these systems have actually been implemented.
And they are said to "work" in a few of those places, although the mark of success for BRT is significantly lower than for light rail. If the actual goal is to get people out of their cars and onto transit by choice, no one's going to give up the hybrid for a damn bus. They tend to be most successful at moving people when they're as different from actual buses as possible, so that means lanes of their own, ideally separated from traffic by curbs or medians like in L.A., where they have BRT lines running down old rail right-of-ways. It also means very well-delineated lines. A "green line" for example, although wouldn't that be a kick in the face, might travel down 99 to downtown and another color would be assigned to whatever went south from there. No numbers - People don't take to numbered BRTs, probably because there's no confidence it's anything other than an express bus. Which it isn't.
The P-I has a BRT primer in the paper today which was inspired by Sims' plan for Bus Rapid Transit in Seattle.
What is it? A system in which buses run in exclusive lanes at 10-minute intervals or less, are allowed through traffic lights before other vehicles, have special stations and distinctive buses, sell tickets off the bus to reduce boarding time, and use electronic signs to show when buses are due.
The way they describe it doesn't make it sound at all attractive or feasible, which is probably a good thing, because the farther we stay from BRT the better. Not that even the best description of BRT ever excited anyone about the future or transportation. The Wikipedia entry for BRT is a little better, at least accurately listing BRT's defining characteristics.
|
We're twice as smart as the people of Shelbyville.
Just tell us your idea, and we'll vote for it!
-- Mayor Quimby, `
[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
All: Monorail!
One major issue is that bus systems do not raise property value to the area that they service. Now when real estate agents see a rail system like Light-Rail or even a trolley it will increase the value of the area. Rainier Valley is going to become yuppified once the Sound Transit Light Rail goes online. At least that is what they said in the Uber liberal political class I took.
Now is a good time to read up on the General Motors streetcar conspiracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov1996/takenforaride/
This is why I will never buy a GM car. They could make a car that ran on water and pooed chocolate coins but I am still pissed about them killing the street cars.
It seems to me that unless there's another solution presented, these corridors (which are not true BRT anyway) presented in Transit Now currently need better service. This is a good way to build more ridership - and the political will to build more light rail corridors.
The important thing is to look at the facts. The Transportation Research Board, an arm of the National Academies of Science, did a detailed report on BRT a few years ago. It is available at www.gobrt.org/casestudies if anyone is interested.
The study looked at 26 BRT system and clearly shows that BRT is an excellent solution for most corridors. It carries more people than virtually all US light rail systems and costs less to build. It attracts large numbers of people out of their cars, because it offers a fast, comfortable, and efficient alternative to driving. It also has increased land values and spurred transit-oriented development in a number of cities.
Promoting BRT is not an extension of some "conspiracy," nor is it an anti-transit position, as some have suggested. To the contrary, promoting BRT is very pro-transit, because it offers greater benefits than other options, like light rail, at a fraction of the cost. This allows cities to provide more corridors and communities with high quality transit service, thus providing more opportunities for people to leave their cars at home, and more opportunities for transit-oriented development.
Please, read the report. Also, look at the database of BRT projects available at www.gobrt.org. There are dozens of BRT systems operating today around the world providing tremendous mobility and environmental benefits. Seattle would do very well to invest substantially in BRT.
My questions about BRT are as follows
Is BRT carbon neutral?
Does it rely on imported Saudi Oil?
Will bad traffic slow it down?
How do you compensate for traffic from trains and accidents?
Will prices be affected by rising oil costs?
What is the life span of the equipment?
Will it encourage suburban sprawl?
It is just another extension of the culture of cars?
Why do right wing anti-transit pundants always point out BRT when none of them take the bus or use public transportation?
Do we want our city to look like the trains of Portland or the traffic jams of LA?
If this is such hot shit then why don’t other cities use it?
Here are some thoughts on your questions.
Is BRT carbon neutral?
You asked the wrong question. The real issue is BRT carbon emissions compared to other options, like rail or cars. For most US cities, BRT provides greater carbon benefits than rail, because most rail systems derive their electricity mainly from fossil fuel power plants. For example, the US gets over 50% of its electricity from coal. Seattle, however, may be an exception, because of the large amount of hydropower in the region.
Does BRT rely on Saudi-oil?
Not if the vehicles run on compressed natural gas, bio-diesel, or some other alternative fuel.
Will traffic slow down BRT?
Not if the BRT vehicles have their own right-of-way, as is the case in a number of cities.
How do you compensate for traffic from trains and accidents?
I don't know what this question means. If you mean how do you accomodate additional passengers, the simplest answer is you add more buses.
Will prices be affected by oil shocks?
Not if you use alternative fuels. But even if you don't, fuel costs are not a huge part of a typical transit agency's operating expenses. Labor costs are much larger.
What is the equipment life?
Depends what equipment you mean. The practice is to amortize over a useful life, and that life varies depending upon the type of equipment. A bus is amortized over 12 years, for example.
Will BRT encourage sprawl?
No more than a rail system that connects the urban core with the suburbs. There are plenty of examples of transit-oriented development with BRT. The real question is whether government has the right land use policies in place, not the type of transit system.
Is BRT an extension of the car culture?
No. It is an alternative to driving, just like rail.
Why do right-wing anti-transit types promote BRT while not using public transportation?
This is a ridiculous question. There are many people who promote BRT who are not right wing and who use public transit every day. I am one of them.
Do we want to look like the trains of Portland or LA?
I am not defending LA, but the Portland rail system has done little to promote public transit ridership. Only 5.6 percent of Portland area residents use public transportation to commute to work, and the majority of these commute trips are by bus, not by rail. There are quite a few cities that do better, including Seattle, which has a 6.2 percent mode share for transit, pretty much all by bus.
If this is hot shit why don't other cities use it?
Do some research. It's in cities all over the world. www.gobrt.org has a detailed database of these cities and systems.
Um... Dan, do you have a more specific objection to BRT than "no one's going to give up the hybrid for a damn bus"? The mark of success doesn't need to be nearly as high when you don't have 2 billion (or 11 billion) in bonds to pay down. Sounds like we can get as many people moving as the monorail would have at a small fraction of the cost, and we can get it done soon. Is it just not futuristic sounding enough for you? How about if we give some spacey sound effects? I think I'd rather get the same job done with a boring bus and leave the money for something else, thanks. I can get excited on my own time, and don't need a government agency to inspire me.
I ride the 545 to Redmond every morning, along with a lot of other people who've "given up the hybrid" for a bus, so many that ST keeps adding more buses to the route, and we still don't have enough room for everyone to sit down. It's every 7 or 8 minutes now during rush hour, and they could expand to every 5 minutes and the buses would still be full. They weren't full 2 years ago when gas was still under 2 bucks a gallon.
BRT would allow Metro/ST to throw in more buses where needed, as needed, and we could have this or something like it running by the end of the year up and down 99. And then spend the rest of our transit money on something else. Like a free bus pass for all residents.
Or we could wait ten years and many billions and many more voter initiatives trying to cripple it for something that will hopefully reach husky stadium, but still won't serve the west side of the city, west seattle, or northgate for the forseeable future. Not to mention the east side. Why not get this going, and then start in with the train tracks/elevated rail/whatever?