This is a great, insightful take on BRT, and very timely as well, given the recent attention to the possibility of a new streetcar system in DC. One of the major departures DDOT's Final Report takes from its initial Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis Needs Assessment is that a number of the corridors identified as potentially benefiting greatly from streetcar routes have been switched to BRT in the Report's build-out plan - a problem that is not helped by DDOT's vague definition of BRT (anywhere from 40 to 60 foot, operating in dedicated right of way or in mixed traffic, etc.)
Trading out a streetcar system for BRT does not make sense, as is clearly backed up by your entry here. We should not give up on the possibility of a 40 to 50 mile streetcar system that complements and expands our current transit options.
(Oh, and thanks for the mention of our Purple Line work!!)
Arlington is making progress on the Shirlington Bus Station.
http://www.commuterpage.com/art/
...rlingtonbus.htm
It's not exactly BRT, but it's related in the sense that it serves busses, seeks to mimic the train experience by making the bus experience a bit more upscale. The surrounding area has increasing density, and several bus routes but no rail. The location is also just off the first HOV-lane interchange south of the Pentagon, thus making it a good location to serve express busses.
I talked with T a couple nights ago. He told me about your upcoming campaign. I think that's a good thing. We need to talk about my transportation paper, but I need to do a rewrite and augmentation before I am willing to send it around...
The point of the paper is one, intertwining transportation and land use planning, and two, creating a DC centric transportation plan, but within the regional context.
I make the point that the core of the subway system in DC acts monocentrically for those areas. And that we should use Arlington's concept of primary and secondary transit networks, although I extend it to include a tertiary category.
For me, tertiary is intra-neighborhood service of a type not currently offered, providing connections to bus trunks and subways.
With funding from the transit withholding tax that I proposed, I suggest that such intra-neighborhood service, which includes trips to and from business districts, delivery, and could have jitney like aspects, be free.
In the paper, this point is extended vis-a-vis the transit system in DC and BART/MUNI. So part of the primary network is the subway system like BART. But it should also be the streetcar network. One is part of WMATA, but the other is what we plan.
Note that I talked with Harriet T. about some of this and she said the Center City Action Plan has some slides showing how the city conceptualizes the transit "network" in the center of the city.
Like you, I think it's not there yet...
If done well BRT works in the U.S.
AC Transit which serves Alameda County (including Berkeley and Oakland) as well as Western Conta Costa County has dived head first into BRT. But the BRT looks and acts more like what I've seen here for South and Central America. LA County as well as done this more planned approach -- separate signage, lowfloor buses, loading and unloading platforms, etc. The San Pablo Rapid is really well liked and AC Transit plans on expanding BRT throughout the region. It's been so successful for AC Transit that even SF is looking into it for Geary and Van Ness Avenues. SF plans to set the BRT lanes up in such away that they could eventually be converted to LRT, though.
Much of SF transit is electric trolleys that ride on wheels (there are only perhaps 7 lines, besides cable cars, that ride on rail anyway) -- so perhaps BRT isn't that much of a stretch as San Franciscans are used to cramming there way onto bus/trolleys all the time.
I'm not saying BRT doesn't work, even in the U.S. But it is disingenuous to state that it can be as successful as subway, because it is in South America, in places like Curitiba and Bogota.
Hey, the Caracas subway system has 1.2 million riders/daily, and it is about 40% of the trackage of the WMATA system. Different conditions--more dense place, more transit dependent riders. Etc.
It might be noted that the AC Transit San Pablo Rapid bus is nothing more than a bus with a red stripe that skips stops. I feel like the BRT folks oversell the concept as Richard says based on South America. The fact of the matter is that it's still a bus, it still hits potholes and is bouncy and for every recent new line except the Orange in LA, it's no different from a limited stop, stuck in traffic bus. I like the BRT concept, but it's the Bush Administration's excuse to cut transit funding, not bring working solutions to regions.
If we're so worried about cost, why not do the rapid streetcar concept (a la the planned Lake Oswego in Portland) and get rails in the ground. The rails are what brings the TOD and the investors. At some point we need to start thinking about how development can pay for this infrastructure if the government won't. Developers see it as an amenity so we might see more of them pitching in. Portland proves this, Arlington County proves this and the Pittsburgh busways prove this. Just something to think about.
In addition, check out the report done by Nelson Nygaard on the San Pablo BRT. I'm wondering why the hype deems it a success given it's documented performance.
"Considering the entire period between May 2003 and October 2004, it can be seen that corridor ridership increased by 2.6 percent. This small net rise was the result of a large ridership gain due to the replacement of the 72 Limited Stop service with the new Rapid service, offset by large ridership losses on the other corridor services."
http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/Sa...June%
202006.pdf
On the other hand, the Portland Yellow line increased ridership from the #5 bus 100%.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news...por_2005-
01.htm
Buses have feeder and express functions, light rail has circulation and trunkline functions, heavy rail has trunkline and rapid transit functions. They should work together as a network to save money.
Commenting by HaloScan
