4 ms·

"Bus Rapid Transit" isn't just regular bus service. It is a specialized system that aims to provide a "Tram" like service that just uses wheels rather than a tr

by jacobr1 11y ago

"Bus Rapid Transit" isn't just regular bus service. It is a specialized system that aims to provide a "Tram" like service that just uses wheels rather than a track. Unlike current bus services, BRT systems use special elevated busses, have a dedicate "track" - special roadways, and dedicated stations. Done right, you really shouldn't realize you that you aren't on light rail or a tram. The biggest advantage really is the cost. It is order of magnitudes cheaper to build BRT systems but only 2-4x more expensive than traditional bus systems.

timthelion 11y ago
It isn't cheeper in the long run. You have to replace busses every decade or two. Not every 50 years.
marssaxman 11y ago
I have seen this claim made many times and accomplished seldom or never. The BRT which is inexpensive is not the BRT which is good. Roadways are not cheap, and if you actually spent the money and political capital it would take to develop new, dedicated, grade-separated smooth concrete roadways for your BRT system, it would cost so much that you might as well just build a train - people will like it more, they'll use it more, you can expand it later by hitching cars together, and your long term maintenance costs will be far, far lower. I believe that BRT is popular among people making transit proposals because they are thinking about it as designers, not as users; they don't care that it is a bus, so they don't understand why other people do. All they see is a politically expedient way to draw some lines on a map. Ask people who use transit, though, and very few of them will be impressed if you try to sell them a bus when what they want is a train.
WalterBright 11y ago
I don't believe that a concrete roadway is in any way cheaper to build than railroad tracks.
- hamburglar 11y ago
  Except they aren't building dedicated roadways -- they're just dedicating existing lanes. Look at the streetview link below. That lane with the red on it used to be a regular traffic lane. This particular stretch of road becomes a nightmare during commute times, and it literally takes you four or five long traffic light cycles to get through this intersection. The bus used to sit in that, and now it whizzes past without noticing. That red lane is only a couple of blocks long, because this is the one really congested spot. You can't spot-apply rail like this. Not to mention, it's just paint -- they can study the effects of these optimizations and adjust them at relatively little cost. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6621364,-122.3451918,3a,75y,296.28h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smebVUY4AYqKIq8rxSbNqSQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6621364,-122.3451918,3a,75y,...
takno 11y ago
Guided busways are in no way comparable to light rail. In practice they are much less comfortable that unguided buses - all the same design issues as before but with huge levels of judder. I would avoid any route which used these for more than about a mile
- takno 11y ago
  Sorry, I've just realised from other responses that what is being proposed is just dedicated bus lanes. These are very much a given in the UK, so I'm always surprised that they are seen as new development in the US

by jacobr1 11y ago

timthelion 11y ago

It isn't cheeper in the long run. You have to replace busses every decade or two. Not every 50 years.

marssaxman 11y ago

I have seen this claim made many times and accomplished seldom or never. The BRT which is inexpensive is not the BRT which is good. Roadways are not cheap, and if you actually spent the money and political capital it would take to develop new, dedicated, grade-separated smooth concrete roadways for your BRT system, it would cost so much that you might as well just build a train - people will like it more, they'll use it more, you can expand it later by hitching cars together, and your long term maintenance costs will be far, far lower. I believe that BRT is popular among people making transit proposals because they are thinking about it as designers, not as users; they don't care that it is a bus, so they don't understand why other people do. All they see is a politically expedient way to draw some lines on a map. Ask people who use transit, though, and very few of them will be impressed if you try to sell them a bus when what they want is a train.

WalterBright 11y ago

I don't believe that a concrete roadway is in any way cheaper to build than railroad tracks.

hamburglar 11y ago
Except they aren't building dedicated roadways -- they're just dedicating existing lanes. Look at the streetview link below. That lane with the red on it used to be a regular traffic lane. This particular stretch of road becomes a nightmare during commute times, and it literally takes you four or five long traffic light cycles to get through this intersection. The bus used to sit in that, and now it whizzes past without noticing. That red lane is only a couple of blocks long, because this is the one really congested spot. You can't spot-apply rail like this. Not to mention, it's just paint -- they can study the effects of these optimizations and adjust them at relatively little cost. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6621364,-122.3451918,3a,75y,296.28h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smebVUY4AYqKIq8rxSbNqSQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6621364,-122.3451918,3a,75y,...

takno 11y ago

Guided busways are in no way comparable to light rail. In practice they are much less comfortable that unguided buses - all the same design issues as before but with huge levels of judder. I would avoid any route which used these for more than about a mile

takno 11y ago
Sorry, I've just realised from other responses that what is being proposed is just dedicated bus lanes. These are very much a given in the UK, so I'm always surprised that they are seen as new development in the US