[sustran] Re: BRT Bashing.

[Eric Bruun]

Dharm

I didn't back the BRT bashing, I acknowledged it. I just asked you to recognize that some people working with LRT think that it is getting bashed a lot, and that they push back. I gave the example of LRT critics who compare the cost of running express buses along the freeways around Houston with building a rail line that goes right through built up areas. These two services meet entirely different needs. 

I support BRT, in fact, any improvements to bus services, no matter what it is called. The point you make, and rightly so, is that BRT has enough capacity for most corridors. But the point I keep trying to make is that BRT is being pushed even where it does not. It is also being pushed where the right-of-way doesn't exist or the vehicle headways would be so short that Transit Signal Priority would not work. 
 
I also fully agree that there is not enough money available (even in a rich country like the US) to build even all of the the most strongly justified rail lines which are being planned. Many places should give up on their LRT plans and do BRT. Do we really have a large disagreement?

Eric
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dharm Guruswamy 
  To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org 
  Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:04 PM
  Subject: [sustran] Fw: More on BRT in the land of casinos...





  Well Eric its just like you to back anyone who bashes BRT. 

  There is going to be a huge gap between the number of projects in the FFGA (Full Funing Grant Agreement) pipeline and the number that can be funded. If there is no increase in the gasoline tax, no more than five (and that's the top number) new projects will be approved in the next five year period. Even with a modest increase in the gasoline tax (and assuming 20% goes to the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, and the new starts program continues to get its historical share), you won't see more than 10 projects approved. When you compare that with the several dozen projects in the pipeline you understand there is a gross mismatch of need to resources. BRT projects can helpe bridge this huge imbalance.

  So now lets look at MAX, it uses new vehicles, signal priority and custom built stations on a already heavily traveled bus line that travels through a landscape that is very sprawling. It's the right technology for the corridor, as is BRT for MOST corridors in the US. Generally, wherever BRT projects have been implemented travel times have gone down and ridership has gone up. Isn't that the goal we are all looking to get to?

  I also stand by my statement because anyone who has seen a Civis in operation knows that it does not belch smoke. It is in fact so clean that it will meet FUTURE EPA emission requirements. Yes, its a bus but it has many railike attributes and in the end perception often trumps reality.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Eric Bruun 
    Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:51 PM
    Subject: More on BRT in the land of casinos...


    Dharm

    I think you are being too hard on John. Just like you react to people being too quick to bash BRT, he reacts to people being too quick to say that BRT is just as good LRT in almost all circumstances. I, too, take exception to what I think is overselling of BRT by the FTA and by others. We are all in favor of better bus systems, but Express buses on the highway are no substitute for rail through built-up area. The term BRT is being thrown around quite loosely and broadly.

    John did qualify his statement by mentioning that ridership should be high to justify LRT. Where he definitely did bash the Civis was to talk about it belching smoke. But it certainly is very wrong and goes too far to say that "he does not understand the issues". 

    Eric


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Dharm Guruswamy 
      To: CONS-SPST-SPRAWL-TRANS at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG 
      Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:23 AM
      Subject: Re: Fw: [sustran] BRT in the land of casinos...


      Lets put this in context. I did some research on MAX. Firstly the ENTIRE start up cost was less than $20 million. Yes, the CIVIS vehicles are expensive but they have a crush capacity of 120 not 100 as you asserted. Also these Civis vehicles are diesel electric hybrids.. when compared to standard diesel buses, they produce less pollution, get better fuel economy and are quieter. These vehicles do look like rail vehicles.. and my guess is the $1 million price tag will go down over time as more are ordered.

       Secondly, the MAX is going to replace an existing bus route that carries 9,000 passengers a day. Service will be operated about every 15 minutes.. we are not talking about a corridor that justifies rail yet.. or one in which can begin to justify spending the additional capital on light rail and begin to show any reasonable rate of return based on labor costs savings.

      I'm tired of people who bash BRT and don't really understand the issues. For the vast majority of transit corridors in the US, BRT represents the best bang for the buck.
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: AUREJOHN at AOL.COM 
        Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:03 PM
        Subject: Re: Fw: [sustran] BRT in the land of casinos...


        Busways are a useful component in the transit toolbox.  

        A good characteristic is that buses can operate on the "stem" of the busway and then branch out into neighborhoods, providing a "one-seat ride."  A rail system would need shuttle buses from stations to serve the same area.

        While a dedicated roadway costs about as much as a dedicated trackway, buses can be operated "on sight" at 60 mph while it would be foolish to operate an intensive rail service at this speed without an expensive signal system.  Another expensive component, usually included with rail but rare with buses is electrification.

        A down side of busways is, if you have enough passenger volume to justify a special road you will be hiring a lot of drivers.  An articulated bus has a capacity of around 100 passengers while a 3-car LR train carries about 400.  Either vehicle requires one driver.

        A regular bus costs around 1/4 million, an artic is (say) 1/2 million; an LR car costs around 2.5 million.  The LR car will last twice as long as the bus.  Lifetime capital cost per passenger "place" is about double for LR (but remember the savings in driver cost).

        The announcement suggests that the "BRT" in Vegas will use a fancy bus, styled to fool folks into thinking it's equal to a rail car, and equipped with guidance so it'll come to a precision stop at stations.  It'll cost twice as much as a standard bus (lifetime capital cost per passenger place equivalent to LR).  But in the end, it's still a bus.

        It will require one driver per 100 (or less) passengers capacity.  It will be noisy, especially if you sit over the engine.  It will belch diesel smoke.  

        I'm not saying busways are a "bad thing," but they aren't "the best thing since sliced bread," either.

        J. Aurelius
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Make your voice heard! Find out how to get Take Action Alerts and other important Sierra Club messages by email at: http://www.sierraclub.org/email 
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Make your voice heard! Find out how to get Take Action Alerts and other important Sierra Club messages by email at: http://www.sierraclub.org/email 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040806/c003d38b/attachment.html