Comments on: Lean Transport: Buses vs. Light Rail

By: Dan Markovitz

Dan Markovitz — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:56:00 +0000

Ryan,

Good point on the need for transit development to spur private investment. But I wonder if the creation of dedicated bus lanes with their smaller infrastructure (i.e., boarding ramps, pre-pay gates, etc.) might be sufficient to act as magnets for development.

To your point about BRT attracting fewer new passengers than light rail: as an ex-New Yorker, I can say that I often would have ridden the bus had if it had been fast and efficient. The terrible traffic kept me from the bus and drove me to subway stations that were less convenient.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:47:00 +0000

For relatively affluent cities, BRT is a false economy. It’s cheaper to build, but attracts fewer new passengers, has a lower carrying capacity, and has a higher per-passenger operating cost.

As oil prices continue to go up (futures hit $88 per barrel yesterday), light rail’s per passenger cost advantage will increase.

It’s also pretty much useless at generating new private investment around the line, which is essential for transit oriented development. Developers want the long-term commitment that comes with a fixed public investment in light rail/streetcar infrastructure.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Andy Wagner

Andy Wagner — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:34:00 +0000

Boston, which was originally built for walking, then built around street cars, has mostly mixed-use neighborhoods. The “Silverline” portion of the MBTA is the sort of bus described here. It seems like a very flexible, lower capital cost alternative to subways.
The Silverline uses dedicated lanes and tunnels through denser parts of town, as well as under Boston Harbor, but in more depressed areas of town, where four lane roads already exist with have excess capacity, the solution has been to dedicate some of the existing lanes to the new buses.
These neighborhoods are revitalizing due to the improved accessibility, but the roads are still sized for the good old days when there was more traffic in the first place.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Mark Graban

Mark Graban — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:05:00 +0000

Thanks for the post, Dan, and for the comments, everyone. Thought provoking stuff. I grew up in a car city (Detroit) and live or have lived in other car cities (Dallas and Phoenix). I lived in Boston for two years without a car and I loved it. I never left a 5 mile diameter for a year, basically (other than flying out somewhere). I didn’t need to leave that diameter between school, home, and anything else I needed.

I definitely agree about the “batching” comment and that mixed use is great, if you can afford it. That would minimize transportation rather than trying to make the waste of transportation more efficient. But, many people can’t afford to live near their jobs… it will be interesting to see, as a society, how we deal with that.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Mike O'Neill

Mike O'Neill — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:04:00 +0000

There’s one big logical gap here: BRT will increase congestion unless NEW lanes are constructed. To have dedicated bus lanes, you either need to build new lanes, or “steal” lanes from cars. That’s a tough sell, especially in downtown urban cores. And a voter revolt could steal those lanes back, something which can’t be done with rail.

And if you’re building new lanes, BRT is far less lean than it’s made out to be here.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: C

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:26:00 +0000

What about reducing the need for cars and buses in the first place by more mixed development. Current accepted urban planning is a form of batching. Instead of batching housing (suburban developments), retail (strip malls), and work (industrial parks) planning should strive toward mixed development so people can locate themselves within a radius that allows them to accesss work, play, and living all within walking/biking distance. I believe seattle’s waterfront redevelopment is striving towards this with their 20 min rule where everything is accessed within 20 min by foot or public transport. Another good website that demonstrates this is http://www.walkscore.com

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:46:00 +0000

I am not even sure where to start with this. Yes buses can flex routes and have perhaps incremental capacity . Trains have the latter and having worked on overground and underground trains in London I know this to be the case.

Train capacity is flexed across the service by minute of the day but essentailly as one would expect peak times are 6-9.30am and 4-7pm with a tail in to and out of each peak.

A light rail or bus transit whilst cheaper are carving out resource (road space) 24 hours a day 7 days a week and will still have the same peaks and troughs in demand. So between 9.30am and 4pm the fact that the schedule will run 50% of the volume of buses / trains still prevents other vehicles from using the road, whether one train / bus runs per day or 200, nothing can utilise that resource, the road space, due to the fixed track. Whats the loss in revenue from removing road space that can not be utilised. Whats the increase cost of for example delivery lorries being further delayed in increased traffic because road capacity has decreased?

As to changing routes / and flexing up / down on capacity. I worked on one of the busiest rail lines in the world, 1 line, 1 million people every rush hour. At the ends of that line (the furthest out from the centre of London), the total volume of people using the service might be 15,000 or less a day, its only in the centre where the real volume is carried. The question that raises is if you are unable to make money on that service should you offer it? We, London / UK, have determined that we will offer public transport services that will be run at a loss as there are greater benefits to the community than, this goes for bus services, rail and underground and my preference is that this continues.

2 Weeks ago we approved the contstruction of the Cross Rail Link in London at a cost of approximately £32 billion US. Not all of this will run at a profit and the return I suspect will take decades but for the people that live in London it will provide an invaluable service.

Like or Dislike: 0 0