BRT

Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) Is
Better than Rail (BTR)
The Right Solution at the Right Time

BRT are special high capacity roadway-based rapid transit system vehicles that look and feel like a subway but use roads, dedicated guidways, and can even share the same rails with light rail. BRT is inviting, clean, and efficient. BRT is light rail on tires.

Update Oct 2014.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operate more like a conventional rail system than the traditional local buses we are all accustomed to riding. The combination of declining public transit dollars and an increased interest in providing better quality public transit has thrust BRT to the forefront of transit discussion throughout the world as an alternative to light rail projects (all except here in Virginia Beach).
Bus Rapid Transit - A Definition

BRT is getting increasingly popular with ninety-seven cities having launched BRT in the past ten years, and 49 more under construction - an inexpensive solution for cash-strapped cities (a solution ignored by the city from the results of the $6.6 million Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study - Projected Costs for Two Modes – Light Rail or Bus Rapid Transit” Aug 2014 –http://www.gohrt.com/vbtes/2014/VBTES-Cost-and-Ridership-Fact-Sheet-Jan-14.pdf ) 
Bus Rapid Transit: An Inexpensive Solution for Cash-Strapped States and Regions

BRT capital costs are lower than for LRT. A study by the United States Government Accountability Office from 2000 found that the average capital cost per mile for busways was $13.5 million while light rail average costs were $34.8 million (add in the existing I-264 and cost are even lower).
BRT from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

BRT vehicles in Maryland operate on exclusive running ways, run as fast as light rail, offer frequent and flexible service not available by light rail, avoid traffic-related delays, provide riders more reliable travel times, and provide a comfortable ride and ease of boarding. BRT capital costs are lower than light rail systems and can be brought online faster. BRT provides both express and local service, something light rail can only do with expensive dual tracks.

Bus Rapid Transit Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan http://montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/highways/brt.shtm 
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 21, 2008, Richard Riordan, Mayor of Los Angeles, on public radio program, “Which Way LA?,” June 1998 said, “Fixed rail is not the answer to the transportation needs of our city. We should stop all this insanity that has gone on these past years.” As a result of Mayor Riordan’s foresight, today Los Angeles has built one of the nation’s finest BRT systems with 2,245 buses serving 1,433 square miles.
“Metro Rapid – Bus Rapid Transit in Los Angeles”
http://www.metro.net/projects/rapid
"Exploring Bus Rapid Transit in Los Angeles" - 4/28/06 – http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/uep/live/studentwork/06comps/AGrinbergCompsPresentation.pdf

BRT passengers walk to comfortable stations, enter using a pre-paid fare card, walk to the platform, board through multiple doors, and quickly move to their destination. Service is so frequent that schedules are not necessary. Vehicles are low emission hybrid electric or compressed natural gas (CNG) and in the future will be powered by zero emission fuel cells.

Why BRT?  BRT offers high quality, high capacity transit service at a fraction of the cost of light rail. It attracts large numbers of new transit riders and offers significant economic development opportunities. Brazil and Ottawa, Canada carry up to 15,000 passengers per hour. By contrast, the Dulles metro* (the Silver Line) will have a maximum capacity of 9,600 passengers per hour, and will cost many times more to build and operate. BRT attracts transit-oriented development and has a positive effect on land values.

Nevertheless local governments continue to push light rail while being ignorant of the BRT advantages. But BRT is catching on with operating systems in 29 U.S. cities with 5 on the way.

BRT Features
* BRT is faster, providing more efficient service than any other form of public transportation.
* BRT can connect current and emerging activity centers.
* BRT offers both express and local service.
* BRT can be put on dedicated lanes with concrete rails producing a smoother ride (like the system in Paris) eliminating traffic tie-ups.
* Pre-pay system provides quick boarding.
* Sliding doors open wide like a subway train allowing quick egress.
* Boarding is on a metro-like platform.
* Range of Sizes – BRT can be three buses connected (200+ passengers) or versatile small specialty BRT vehicles to act as feeder lines to major stations from popular destinations.
* BRT never has to stop at red klights. Traffic light signals automatically change for BRT.
* Station kiosks provide real-time next BRT arrival information at stations.
* Modern controls on BRT allow start & stop just like a train.
* BRT have flat screens on-board for information and advertisements.

Advantages over Light Rail
* Huge Cost Savings. An efficient BRT to Dulles Airport was estimated to be 1/18th the cost of the 17 mile Silver Line Metro now under construction.
* Better on-time service - Statistically there is more delay on rail lines than BRT. If there is a rail line breakdown caused by equipment malfunction or weather, the whole line gets backed up. BRT does not have this single lane stack up problem. Many municipalities authorize BRT to go on the shoulder along with emergency vehicles when there is a back up or to simply use another route. Simply put, BRT is much more versatile and faster.
* More Frequent Pickup Times. Los Angeles runs vehicles every 90 seconds during peak. In many cities pickup times are every five minutes during rush hours and every 15 minutes at other times. BRT was faster than Light Rail in six cities surveyed (GAO Study - June 24, 2003).
* Flexible Service. BRT service can be rerouted and shifted over time to correspond with the changing transportation needs of a city. Light Rail is stuck in one place.
* Economy of Growth. BRT systems can be easily expanded over time to provide long-distance service without requiring transfers. Seattle’s BRT system is expanding to cover the entire metro Puget Sound region. LA BRT has been so successful that plans recently were announced to expand the system by 356 miles.
* Environmentally Friendly. BRT are substantially cleaner and less polluting. BRT uses clean low emission fuels (compressed natural gas, hybrid and future fuel cell) vs. light rail that is powered by electricity – 50% coming from dirty coal fired power plants. Studies show light rail produces higher emissions per passenger than BRT.

Where is Light Rail Better? Cities like New York, Washington D.C., and Boston that have a high density inner city have light rail crisscrossing the down town area and spur lines reaching out to suburban terminal points that can accommodate large parking lots. Commuters drive to these terminal areas and switch to light rail for the ride into the city to avoid congestion and prohibitive parking fees.

Where is BRT Better? Cities that are spread out like Los Angeles and Virginia Beach should consider a BRT system for a public transportation web. In that light rail costs are appreciably more expensive than BRT, cities can ill afford a light rail web that, in the case of Virginia Beach, would have to stretch out 25 miles east and west and 25 miles north and south. The most cost effect approach is a primary BRT system that utilizes the existing interstate roadways with connector BRT and bus lines feeding from outreach areas such as Pungo, Oceana, Ft Story, etc. into the primary BRT system. This system can offer total city coverage with more frequent pick-up intervals at a fraction of the cost of light rail.

BRT Proposal in Lieu of Light Rail for Virginia Beach. Use Interstate 264 for an express BRT 12 mile trip to the beach. With a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of BRT ($161m) to light rail ($807m), i.e., 1/5 the cost as previously found out by 29 other cities, the city can build, besides a BRT trunk route from Newtown to Birdneck, BRT connector lines from the trunk line to the Norfolk Naval Station, Oceana, Little Creek and Fort Story. Instead of hourly service on antiquated buses the city could have (for less money) 10 min (rush 5 min) pick-up with GPS displays showing exactly how soon the next BRT will arrive, prepay platform loading, kiosks, wheelchair access, automatic stoplight triggers, special smooth ride tires, etc.

Virginia Beach BRT Features.
* Riders exiting the Norfolk Tide at Newtown Road will be able to walk across the platform to waiting BRT.
* Planned light rail stations for Witchduck Road and Town Center (Pembroke Area), Lynnhaven Parkway, Great Neck/London Bridge (Lynnhaven Area), Laskin Road (Hilltop Area), and Birdneck Road (Resort Area) will not need to be constructed along the Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way. These stops will be relocated along Virginia Beach Blvd and Laskin Road at more convenient business hubs and shopping Centers. The Oceanfront station will be traded for more convenient stations up and down Pacific Ave.
* BRT will be permitted to use I-264 shoulders during heavy traffic.
* Local BRT will be equipped with priority traffic-light changing devices.
* Pre-pay kiosks.
* Stations will have protection from cold, rain, and wind.
* Modern BRT with sliding doors that open wide to allow quick boarding.
* Flat screen TV’s in BRT.
* Screens at all stations announcing time of arrival of next BRT.
* Compressed Natural gas BRT
* Special tires for smooth ride.
* Start and stop feature without lurching.

Virginia Beach BRT Advantages over Light Rail.
* Local BRT on Virginia Beach Blvd / Laskin Road will offer stops more convenient and closer to shops and businesses than the Light Rail which is to be built on the Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way. For example, for the proposed light rail station at Oceana, the walk is exactly one mile to Hilltop Plaza.
* Trip to the beach will be faster (fewer stops) with BRT being able to run more frequently than light rail.
* BRT easily expandable to other areas. The cost to expand light rail to Ft Story, Oceana, Little Creek, and the Naval Station will be prohibitive. Just think of the traffic tie-ups during construction. BRT can not only expand to these popular locations, but it can offer door to door service.
* Cost savings in many areas
- Avoid costly construction of light rail stations.
- Avoid construction of at least a dozen expensive light rail bridges over north/south roads crossing Light Rail Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way.
- Avoid rail construction of two terminal yards.
- Convention Center parking can be used at express BRT beach terminal point.
- Maintenance for light rail cars in a saltwater flood plain will be astronomical especially for the corrosive nature of metal rail wheels. BRT vehicles can be moved away during floods, and repair costs are a fraction of light rail breakdowns. Ten BRT tires equals the cost of one metal train wheel, and four train wheels are needed for every one BRT tire.

Studies

* Extend Light Rail to Virginia Beach Study. The $6.6 million Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study (VBTES) Alternatives Analysis (AA) will look at Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in lieu of extending the Norfolk light rail to the Beach. But the BRT study may be superficial since Virginia Beach has already designated locations for light rail stations and purchased the Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way for a light rail extension of Norfolk’s light rail. However, if a serious study is undertaken comparing costs, Virginia Beach will have a most difficult time in rejecting BRT.
"Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study" -
http://www.gohrt.com/about/development/vbtes

* Bus Rapid Transit was faster than Light Rail in Six Cities Surveyed General Accounting Office, June 24 2003
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03729t.pdf

* Economic Studies. In Pittsburgh BRT attracted over $375 million in development in the 1990’s. In Brisbane, Australia residential property values near BRT increased over 20 percent in the first year of BRT operation.

* GAO Study. Bus Rapid Transit was faster than Light Rail in six cities surveyed.

* New York Federal Transit Administration Study. BRT offers high quality, high capacity transit service at a fraction of the cost of rail. It attracts large numbers of new transit riders and offers significant economic development opportunities.

* Bus Rapid Transit for the Metropolitan Puget Sound – Seattle Study. Study comments Donald F Padelford. “We should stop railing at gridlock and put in place a BRT system that would cover the entire metro Puget Sound region at 60 mph 24/7; have far more capacity than competing systems such as light rail or monorail; support ‘walkable,’ mixed-use neighborhoods, and set the stage for a total regional mobility solution. While Sound Transit’s Initial Segment of light rail represents a foolish squandering of literally billions of scarce transportation dollars, it is becoming a ‘sunk cost’ which cannot be just abandoned. Therefore the right thing to do is to convert it to a more appropriate technology, such as bus-on-rail (guided-bus), which would dovetail with BRT in other corridors. BRT should be the mode of choice for high capacity transit in the metropolitan Puget Sound region. It has far more capacity than competing systems.”

* Richmond Virginia BRT Study. The Broad Street corridor contains one out of every four jobs in the greater Richmond region and a number of significant activity centers. To meet these needs, a BRT concept, running within the Broad Street corridor in downtown Richmond, was recommended in the recently completed Transit System report (2008). The conceptual plan for the BRT corridor includes many characteristics common in other BRT operations. The Richmond BRT service will provide a high frequency, limited stop service that uses specialized vehicles. The conceptual plan proposes to include real-time next bus arrival information and other ITS (Information Technology Solutions) systems that will give signal prioritization to the BRT vehicle.
“More on Richmond Transit Improvements,” Jun 8,2007 http://richmondva.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/more-on-richmond-transit-improvements
“Richmond Broad Street Rapid Transit Study,” Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, 2010
http://www.richmondgov.com/MainStreetStation/documents/BroadStreetRapidTransitInfo.pdf

* I-66 Transit/TDM Study - "Final Report,” Chapter 7, “Priority Bus Definition,” I-66 Transit/TDM Technical Advisory Committee, Dec 31, 2009
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/studies/files/_FR1_I66TransitTDMStudy_FinalReport.pdf

* BRT vs. Rail for the Dulles Airport Corridor. The Metro Silver Line (now under construction) is a metro rail line extension from the Washington D.C.-based 110 mile metro system to the Washington Dulles International Airport, located 26 miles west of the central business district of Washington, D.C.  Designed by Eero Saarinen, and placed in operation in 1962, Dulles features a 17 mile dedicated four lane highway from the Capital Beltway. Saarinen envisioned special buses to carry people from the terminal to awaiting planes and other special buses to transport people to and from Washington D.C. Only the special buses from the terminal to airplanes were built. The other will never be realized. Instead a metro rail system is under construction as an expansion to the Washington D.C. based 110 mile metro system. A 2000 study proposed BRT for the 17 mile Dulles Airport Virginia system using the Dulles Access road and was to have cost $287,300,000. But this cost saving recommendation was discarded because, in the words of the I-66 Transit/TDM Study, “it became clear that a full BRT implementation would not be the most appropriate short- or medium-term recommendation.” Questions asked by the study indicated quite clearly that people were not familiar with BRT, so their answers were less than satisfactory, and thus BRT was eliminated as a primary trunk line system from East Falls Church to Dulles International Airport. As a result the Silver Line (metro) is now under construction for close to $7 billion (twice the original $3.5 billion estiamte), i.e., 24 times the cost of an efficient BRT system with costs climbing almost monthly. When completed the Silver Line will force passengers to sit through well over 20 stops just to get from Dulles Airport to downtown, providing a strong disincentive to use the system. The Silver line is now sucking money out of state coffers, highway funds, and causing exorbitant tolls on nearby roadways. Tax payers in the entire state of Virginia are likely to end up bailing out Northern VA over the Silver Line debacle. A Dec 30, 2011 “Leesburg Today” article, “Dulles Rail: Will It or Won’t It?” stated, “The state government also will be contributing more money, as has been pushed by many local leaders, up to $150 million.” http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/article_91ef6d98-326d-11e1-8c4f-0019bb2963f4.html and a Jun 17, 2012 “American University Radio WAMU-88.5” article, “Eyeing Dulles Toll Road For Silver Line Funding,” stated, “Either additional state funding, or the ability to access TIFIA financing (subsidized federal loans), or a combination of both can have the impact of reducing the burden on the toll road.” http://wamu.org/news/12/06/17/loudoun_weighs_silver_line_options_part_three
Also see the following articles:
“Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area/Dulles Corridor Bus Rapid Transit,” Nov 2000 -http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_to_congress/planning_environment_3190.html
“Rail at Any Cost - Options that Could Provide Better Service than Dulles Rail at a Third of the Cost,” William Vincent, Dec 2005 http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/Rail_at_any_cost.pdf
“Rail in the Dulles Corridor and Tyson’s Corner,” [Fact Sheet]
http://www.gobrt.org/McLeanCivicAssociation.pdf
“Rail (Metro) to Dulles Airport,” [links to Dulles Rail vs. BRT] 2008
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/rail/rail2dulles.html
“Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) -The Smart Solution For the Dulles Corridor and Beyond,” Breakthrough Technologies Institute (BTI), 2001
http://www.gobrt.org/DullesBRTFlyer.pdf

* Dulles Greenway BRT Feasibility Study 2008 - BRT from Leesburg to Dulles Airport. Using the exorbitant cost of the $5.25 billion Silver Line, the town of Leesburg took a serious look at BRT and found that a BRT system would ease traffic congestion, improve air quality, enhance mobility, and stimulate development. BRT stations would create permanent, high quality access to regional economic activity centers for thousands of potential customers. A BRT design is now underway. “Leesburg ‐ Dulles Greenway BRT Feasibility,” May 28, 2008 http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/activities/tlc/pdf/Final_Leesburg_BRT.pdf

References.
“List of Bus Rapid Transit Systems,” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems
“National BRT Institute- High Capacity, Lower Cost Public Transit Solution That Can Significantly Improve Urban Mobility,”
http://www.nbrti.org
“Bus Rapid Transit Components,” Maryland Department of Transportation, 2001
http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Planning/Bus_Rapid_Transit/BRT_Components.html
“Bus Rapid Transit, the Right Solution at the Right Time,” William Vincent, Dec 2005
http://www.gobrt.org/BillVincent.pdf">http://www.gobrt.org/BillVincent.pdf
"Bus Rapid Transit Policy Center" [Promotes understanding of enhanced bus services] 2010 http://www.gobrt.org
"Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit - The 'Quickway' Model as a Modal Alternative to 'Light Rail Lite'”
http://fta.dot.gov/documents/BRT_Network_Planning_Study_-_Final_Report.pdf
“Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Smart Transit for The Smart Growth Community,” Breakthrough Technologies Institute (BTI), 2001
http://www.gobrt.org/SmartGrowthBRTFlyer.pdf
“High Quality Rapid Transit for the 21st Century - A Policy Primer on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT),” Breakthrough Technologies Institute (BTI), 2001 [Compares Light Rail with BTR Cost] http://www.gobrt.org/BRTFlyer.pdf
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)