28 responses to “Bus-only Lanes Ineffective in Vancouver BC”
I know its not a very popular opinion around these parts, but I truly think that BRT is a joke unless you are going to give a separated ROW. If you want another example of BRT failing in an urban environment take a good look at the Silver Line in Boston. Its been nicknamed the Silver Lie by the locals (for several reasons). (Phase 1 has separate lanes in a dense urban area and doesn’t work. Phase 2 is mostly in a separate ROW and is generally believed to be OK, but has its own set of problems.)
I’m not saying BRT can’t work, but in dense urban areas it probably won’t unless you give it a mostly separated ROW. BRT could certainly work in conjunction with HOV lanes as well when appropriate.
The problem seems to be more related to the way this was designed than anything else.
I don’t see that. The problem appears to be the nature of how buses actually operated without the designated lanes. The lanes closest to the curb were already largely used as bus lanes. Cars, once prohibited from using the bus lanes, made right turns from the next lane over in front of the bus, stopping for pedestrians and blocking the lane. Previously they would have got into the same lane behind the bus to make their turns.
THINK! seems to be the missing factor.
Actually it appears the models predicted the results, the problem was that some members of the public didn’t THINK they were correct.
Other than one line about drivers making right turns, there is little stated in the report that tells the reader how allowing busses to monopolize one lane of the street affects congestion and the overall combined operation of the street for all other users. There was no mention of the probable negative environmental impacts created due to what appears to be increased congestion in the other travel lanes on the street. This is yet another example of a transit system unwilling to share the road and similar to TriMet’s monopolistic domination attitude towards motorists when it comes to constructing curb extensions at transit stops and obstructing other traffic by parking their busses in travel lanes to board passengers.
I see Michael Wilson’s point. There probably was a way to effectively add BRT to this corridor. One option might have been to put the Bus-Only lanes down the *center* of the roadway, and move the bus stops to the middle of the road. If left turns were banned, then buses could go about their business free from the interference of other traffic. Another option might have been to move the bus lane away from the curb, such that a right turn lane could be squeezed between the bus lane and the curb at intersections. This, however, would still allow vehicles into the bus-only lane in passing to another lane, so it would be less preferable.
Finally, it’s easy to see how folks might believe that adding a bus-only lane might speed up the buses. That’s what is supposed to happen. This just seems like lousy implementation to me. A center-boarding system would have been much better.
This just seems like lousy implementation to me. A center-boarding system would have been much better/i>
That is a whole lot more expensive implementation since it requires building boarding platforms in the center of the roadway. That is not even remotely in the same ballpark in terms of costs as designating a lane as bus only. And it forces riders to cross traffic to get on the bus.
The Orange Line in Los Angeles is a pretty good BRT setup, could be better, but has high ridership with buses running every 5-10 minutes. They even use the honor system!
That line uses a former rail ROW, so it has its own route… Sometimes cars use it as a shortcut, reminds me of a video on YouTube showing cars following a BRT bus closely to pass the gates, only to find the gates pushing up underneath the car, heh heh he
Actualy the Orange Line has some issues, it seems that it has accidents that are more frequent then usual causing busses to reduce speed to 16mph through intersections.
Also while the line has good ridership it has already reach its compacity, MTA now has to add more then one bus for each schedualed run and extra runs, causing more congestion and slower boarding. It seems that the nearly 400 million dollar line ALREADY needs to be replaced with rail of some type because they will need more riding room.
Robert, I last rode the line in spring of 2004, and it was maxed out as it was. Thanks for the latest, it doesn’t surprise me that it needs extra capacity — To expand with BRT you’ll need extra buses and drivers. With rail, keep one operator and same schedule, just make the platforms longer, tack on some extra cars!
One positive note about the Orange Line, is that the corridor is preserved for future rail upgrades… It’ll happen, not in 20 years, but maybe 50.
With rail, keep one operator and same schedule, just make the platforms longer, tack on some extra cars!
Except in downtown Portland, LRT trains are restricted to two cars, unless a subway is built, or streets are blocked off to allow for longer platforms.
Also Washington Park wasn’t built with expansion in mind, a longer platform would have to be dug out; Sunset TC also would be very difficult (read: expensive) to lengthen. Beaverton TC and Gateway TC would require massive track reconfiguration.
While BRT has the drawback of requiring more busses, one can simply increase the service frequency to a matter of a couple minute headways between busses.
Also Washington Park wasn’t built with expansion in mind, a longer platform would have to be dug out; Sunset TC also would be very difficult (read: expensive) to lengthen. Beaverton TC and Gateway TC would require massive track reconfiguration.
This is one thing (not the only thing) that I find really irritating about Tri-Met. They could have spent a little more money up front creating stations and aligning track to be expansion-ready, so that when a subway finally goes in downtown, the rest of the system could be expanded to four-car trains very easily. Instead, they ignored the possibility of expansion and instead designed the system to require astonishingly expensive retrofitting if we ever want to modify it to take advantage of rail’s great advantage in passenger capacity.
One positive note about the Orange Line, is that the corridor is preserved for future rail upgrades
I used to think this made sense, but someone pointed out that you need to do something with the existing buses while you upgrade to rail. There are probably solutions, but I think it is going to be very difficult to transition to higher capacity rail once a BRT option gets overloaded.
“While BRT has the drawback of requiring more busses, one can simply increase the service frequency to a matter of a couple minute headways between busses.”
>>>> Right, as they could have done with Interstate Avenue, to meet increased ridership.
Limited stop buses with signal pre-emption could have been added, thus matching or bettering MAX times. With 4 lanes available, you wouldn’t even need a BRT POW. As long as the load factors are there, what’s the problem with operator salaries?
You would be providing a more useful system.
But no, they had to waste over a THIRD OF A BILLION dollars that could have been spent on our freight railroads, for example, which are choking to death, as I understand it. (Too many trolley jollies in this town, I guess.)
It seems that here in Portland, there is no end to the number of logistical problems with our “model” light rail system. What a joke.
Interstate MAX already carries double the ridership of the old #5 bus line, and does so with _fewer_ operators.
The capacity of the existing Yellow Line, as built, can carry twice again that ridership without needing to add many additional operators… just add railcars and a couple of extra peak-hour runs.
Operator costs matter: If you assume (not a good assumption, in my opinion) that the current ridership of the Yellow Line could have been served simply by throwing more buses at the problem, you’d need a LOT more operators, 20 or 30 full-time positions depending on how things were allocated, plus a supervisor or two and more dispatch staff. You’re talking upwards of $50 million over 30 years in operating costs, plus the additional buses which would need to be purchased (which wear out faster than light rail cars), etc.
If you include dedicated bus lanes, you’re either hiding costs by pushing road maintenance off onto another department (light rail pays for the maintenance of its own ROW), or you’ve got to build a concrete trackway and maintain it yourself.
Finally, the largest chunk of costs in Yellow Line construction was the Denver Ave. viaduct. (The old automobile viaduct is slated to be replaced soon as part of the Delta Park widening project.) Somebody, somewhere would have to pay for elevated transit lanes, whether rail, dedicated bus, or a wider version of the viaduct replacement project.
If your dedicated bus lanes are on the right, you’ll have the same problem Vancouver BC has: No travel time improvement. If you run in the center, you’ll need to build island platforms.
Finally, a lot of cost assigned to MAX is really “streetscape” improvements. You can debate whether these are really necessary, but as part of a busway project there’s no more or less reason not to include them.
When you’re all done, you’ll have spent a lot of capital money (but not as much initially), have higher operating costs, less likely ridership, and still have the problems that go along with buses: Bumpy ride, local emissions, noise, etc.
FYI, Eugene just built a very nice busway using modern hybrid buses and attractive stations, and already neighborhood opposition to more busways is cropping up.
I see you’ve gone from tossing around “railfans” as though it was some kind of insult, now to “trolley jollies”. Got any more stereotypes? They really bolster your arguments.
When you’re all done, you’ll have spent a lot of capital money (but not as much initially), have higher operating costs, less likely ridership, and still have the problems that go along with buses: Bumpy ride, local emissions, noise, etc.
How would a BRT immediately have “less likely ridership?” than LRT; generally any type of improvement (even just improvements on existing bus service) generally results in a ridership increase; I’ve never heard of an improvement that results in less ridership. (Except TriMet’s disinvestment in bus service over more LRT/Streetcar spending.)
I’m not sure if BRT is right for Portland but I think it would have made sense in the Portland-Milwaukie corridor where numerous busses use the same exact route into downtown Portland. BRT would have the advantage of having frequent service with LRT style amenities along the corridor to Milwaukie, and then the busses continue as local service routes beyond Milwaukie to Oregon City, Gladstone, Clackamas, etc.
Since no such route existed east to Gresham (busses used a variety of routes east), BRT wouldn’t be a good substitute for MAX.
West of Portland, there were several routes (Sunset Highway, Canyon Road, Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway). TriMet’s role in developing transit service in Beaverton and Hillsboro has been successful by establishing a corridor service and linking it with a variety of local service routes. A few busses that were destined for downtown became feeders, but many of them had low ridership anyways. The only significant loss was the 58-Sunset Highway, which should be restored to provide express service to Forest Grove/Cornelius.
BRT would have very limited success south; there is a “corridor” of sorts between Capitol Highway and downtown along Barbur Blvd. But many busses divert onto Naito with few stops, and Naito rarely backs up.
However such is not to suggest I support making an immediate call for more MAX – TriMet could easily improve bus line performance by improving vehicles and bus stops, and taking more steps to ensure service reliability. Bus lanes, more signals with pre-emption devices, better stop locations/designs, and newer/more reliable busses, would do much to improve service and ridership without the massive capital expense of LRT or even BRT.
Just remember that even MAX has regular service disruptions from time to time, and who is called to rescue the stranded passengers? A bus. MAX/LRT has certain benefits, some of which TriMet cannot fully apply (i.e. maximum of two cars due to station design and downtown block lengths), but just as TriMet can add another train, it can add another bus. MAX benefits by having a single train carry several times the load as a single bus – provided that everyone is coming from the same general area, going to the same general area, or at least along the route. Gateway-Portland-Beaverton is an excellent example of where LRT has been an proven success.
I’m hoping the Eugene busway will go a LONG way to busting some of the myths that “rail haters” espouse (ad nauseum). How much did that system cost to build? Does anybody have reliable figures?
The total project cost was $24 million, including 6 hybrid buses at just under $1 mil each.
Most of the capital costs went to the approx 2.4 miles of BRT concrete transitway and stations, which are “single-tracked” (buses must wait for opposite-direction buses to clear the transitway before proceeding.)
This puts the infrastructure, station, and signalization costs in excess of $6m/mile, perhaps as high as even $7.5 million (it’s not easily broken out from the figures I’ve been able to find.)
That puts it at about half the cost per track-mile of a streetcar system, for example. (Recent Portland Streetcar extensions have come in at about $12.5 mil per track mile.)
But this is for a system with less than 60% of the ridership of the Portland Streetcar, and due to EmX’s single-track nature it is not clear that adding extra buses will significantly help capacity in the corridor.
PS… Before anyone complains that comparing Portland Streetcar ridership to EmX ridership is unfair because a huge portion of the Portland Streetcar’s route goes through Fareless Square, please note that EmX is heavily promoted as being completely fare-free.
In high capacity corridors how do you get from BRT to LRT when the demand is there without blowing the BRT system out of the water? Maybe you are just better off getting the rails in place from the get-go.
Once you decide to dedicate ROW to transit what is the advantage to not going rail? some up front capital costs are less, but operational costs, as per Bob, are a lot more.
Without dedicated ROW, we are not talking about reliable, let alone fast, high capacity transit, just a suped up bus line with fancy paint.
Wasn’t the increased per-mile figure for the Lowell extension due to the fact that there was no improved streets along part of the alignment? So it wasn’t like the earlier segments where they only had to excavate the trackbed about 12″ then add the catenary poles and wires.
“I see you’ve gone from tossing around “railfans” as though it was some kind of insult, now to “trolley jollies”. Got any more stereotypes? They really bolster your arguments.”
>>>> Well, I guess then that I’m insulting myself too, as I was railfanning systems in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Chicago, etc. before a lot of posters here were ever conceived.
Just because I believe that rail operations are not suitable for Portland doesn’t mean they are not suitable for other localities.
The thing is that I am wise to the game that’s being played here in Portland when it comes to transit.
BTW, yesterday I took the 5:22 PM Yellow line from SW 9th to Kenton. ONE CAR TRAIN with a number of standees.
BTW, yesterday I took the 5:22 PM Yellow line from SW 9th to Kenton. ONE CAR TRAIN with a number of standees.
Yes, as has been demonstrated numerous times, A) the Yellow Line is popular, and B) capacity may be easily expanded by adding light rail cars with no need for additional operators.
Is your minimum standard for service now No Standees at Peak Hour? That might be nice, but then I suspect someone might accuse TriMet of spending too much money on light rail because there are empty seats available at peak times.
Also, Nick, regarding the capacities of that one-car train:
Applying consistent standards of about 3.5 sq. ft of passenger area per person across multiple vehicle types, you get (approximately):
* Standard 40′ Bus: 82 (New Flyer D40LF)
* BRT 60′ Bus: 115 (New Flyer DE60LF)
* Portland Streetcar: 150
* 2-car LRV train (Existing MAX): 400 (211 for Type I, about 200 for Type II/III)
* 2-car LRV train (New MAX cars on order): 424 (212 x 2, Houston S70 specs)
So that full one-car MAX train you rode would have required 3 standard buses or 2 “BRT” style buses (and thus 1 or 2 additional operators) to provide the same service. Once ridership reaches a level where crowded 2-car trains become the norm at peak hour, then you’d need 5 standard buses or 4 “BRT” buses to serve those passengers.
The Yellow Line runs 6X an hour at peak (a train approximately every 10 minutes)… regular buses would have to run every 2 minutes and BRT buses would have to run every 2.5 minutes. Such tight schedules would lead to bunching problems and schedule unreliability, not to mention huge operating costs.
The Yellow Line has the lowest ridership of any of the MAX lines (not surprisingly, it is only a 5.5 mile line) and yet it already provides a level of service that would be difficult to match with a BRT system.
If we had built BRT instead, in 10 years people would be complaining of severe overcrowding and service disruptions and wondering why rail hadn’t been selected in the first place.
Portland is ready for rail in key corridors. The ridership demonstrates that fact.
I said my one car train had a NUMBER of standees–it was nowhere near “full.” (This was leaving the rose Quarter.) Nothing that a combination of regular and articulated buses could have handled.
“Well, I guess then that I’m insulting myself too, as I was railfanning systems in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Chicago, etc. before a lot of posters here were ever conceived.” -Nick
So, you were cheerleading for rail in these cities in the 50’s and 60’s, when they were much smaller than they are today, and when gas was cheap, but somehow Portland in the 21st Century doesn’t warrant the same level of transit services? That makes no sense. You do know that Portland is now bigger than Pittsburgh, right?
“The thing is that I am wise to the game that’s being played here in Portland when it comes to transit.” -Nick
Really? You’re “wise” to the grand conspiracy that wants to put HCT in high density corridors so that growth can be concentrated around rail stations instead of sprawling throughout the entire Willamette Valley? I guess we’re busted, you figured it all out. Now we can’t follow through with our evil scheme, darn it.
Nothing that a combination of regular and articulated buses could have handled.
What? Are we saying that Portland is no longer suitable for bus service? That bus service cannot be added/increased to match loads?
* Standard 40′ Bus: 82 (New Flyer D40LF)
* BRT 60′ Bus: 115 (New Flyer DE60LF)
* Portland Streetcar: 150
* 2-car LRV train (Existing MAX): 400 (211 for Type I, about 200 for Type II/III)
* 2-car LRV train (New MAX cars on order): 424 (212 x 2, Houston S70 specs)
What about the 1-car trains that are predominate on the Red and Yellow Lines? Those are conveniently overlooked. Even at 200 passengers, two articulated busses would handle the load easily.
Yes – two articulated busses require two drivers. One LRT (one or two cars) requires one operator. LRT requires a dedicated trackway that can’t be used by anything else. LRT has no ability to detour in the event of a service interruption. LRT cannot be easily relocated to meet service changes. A bus can move up or down a block, around construction, around a wreck, around a downed power line, etc.
LRT is great when traffic levels demand it. But to suggest that busses can in no way meet the demand, well then I guess someone better tell TriMet to shut down the bus operation. Two out of three Portland transit users use the bus.
28 responses to “Bus-only Lanes Ineffective in Vancouver BC”
I know its not a very popular opinion around these parts, but I truly think that BRT is a joke unless you are going to give a separated ROW. If you want another example of BRT failing in an urban environment take a good look at the Silver Line in Boston. Its been nicknamed the Silver Lie by the locals (for several reasons). (Phase 1 has separate lanes in a dense urban area and doesn’t work. Phase 2 is mostly in a separate ROW and is generally believed to be OK, but has its own set of problems.)
I’m not saying BRT can’t work, but in dense urban areas it probably won’t unless you give it a mostly separated ROW. BRT could certainly work in conjunction with HOV lanes as well when appropriate.
The problem seems to be more related to the way this was designed than anything else.
THINK! seems to be the missing factor.
MW
The problem seems to be more related to the way this was designed than anything else.
I don’t see that. The problem appears to be the nature of how buses actually operated without the designated lanes. The lanes closest to the curb were already largely used as bus lanes. Cars, once prohibited from using the bus lanes, made right turns from the next lane over in front of the bus, stopping for pedestrians and blocking the lane. Previously they would have got into the same lane behind the bus to make their turns.
THINK! seems to be the missing factor.
Actually it appears the models predicted the results, the problem was that some members of the public didn’t THINK they were correct.
Other than one line about drivers making right turns, there is little stated in the report that tells the reader how allowing busses to monopolize one lane of the street affects congestion and the overall combined operation of the street for all other users. There was no mention of the probable negative environmental impacts created due to what appears to be increased congestion in the other travel lanes on the street. This is yet another example of a transit system unwilling to share the road and similar to TriMet’s monopolistic domination attitude towards motorists when it comes to constructing curb extensions at transit stops and obstructing other traffic by parking their busses in travel lanes to board passengers.
I see Michael Wilson’s point. There probably was a way to effectively add BRT to this corridor. One option might have been to put the Bus-Only lanes down the *center* of the roadway, and move the bus stops to the middle of the road. If left turns were banned, then buses could go about their business free from the interference of other traffic. Another option might have been to move the bus lane away from the curb, such that a right turn lane could be squeezed between the bus lane and the curb at intersections. This, however, would still allow vehicles into the bus-only lane in passing to another lane, so it would be less preferable.
Finally, it’s easy to see how folks might believe that adding a bus-only lane might speed up the buses. That’s what is supposed to happen. This just seems like lousy implementation to me. A center-boarding system would have been much better.
This just seems like lousy implementation to me. A center-boarding system would have been much better/i>
That is a whole lot more expensive implementation since it requires building boarding platforms in the center of the roadway. That is not even remotely in the same ballpark in terms of costs as designating a lane as bus only. And it forces riders to cross traffic to get on the bus.
The Orange Line in Los Angeles is a pretty good BRT setup, could be better, but has high ridership with buses running every 5-10 minutes. They even use the honor system!
That line uses a former rail ROW, so it has its own route… Sometimes cars use it as a shortcut, reminds me of a video on YouTube showing cars following a BRT bus closely to pass the gates, only to find the gates pushing up underneath the car, heh heh he
Actualy the Orange Line has some issues, it seems that it has accidents that are more frequent then usual causing busses to reduce speed to 16mph through intersections.
Also while the line has good ridership it has already reach its compacity, MTA now has to add more then one bus for each schedualed run and extra runs, causing more congestion and slower boarding. It seems that the nearly 400 million dollar line ALREADY needs to be replaced with rail of some type because they will need more riding room.
Robert, I last rode the line in spring of 2004, and it was maxed out as it was. Thanks for the latest, it doesn’t surprise me that it needs extra capacity — To expand with BRT you’ll need extra buses and drivers. With rail, keep one operator and same schedule, just make the platforms longer, tack on some extra cars!
One positive note about the Orange Line, is that the corridor is preserved for future rail upgrades… It’ll happen, not in 20 years, but maybe 50.
With rail, keep one operator and same schedule, just make the platforms longer, tack on some extra cars!
Except in downtown Portland, LRT trains are restricted to two cars, unless a subway is built, or streets are blocked off to allow for longer platforms.
Also Washington Park wasn’t built with expansion in mind, a longer platform would have to be dug out; Sunset TC also would be very difficult (read: expensive) to lengthen. Beaverton TC and Gateway TC would require massive track reconfiguration.
While BRT has the drawback of requiring more busses, one can simply increase the service frequency to a matter of a couple minute headways between busses.
Also Washington Park wasn’t built with expansion in mind, a longer platform would have to be dug out; Sunset TC also would be very difficult (read: expensive) to lengthen. Beaverton TC and Gateway TC would require massive track reconfiguration.
This is one thing (not the only thing) that I find really irritating about Tri-Met. They could have spent a little more money up front creating stations and aligning track to be expansion-ready, so that when a subway finally goes in downtown, the rest of the system could be expanded to four-car trains very easily. Instead, they ignored the possibility of expansion and instead designed the system to require astonishingly expensive retrofitting if we ever want to modify it to take advantage of rail’s great advantage in passenger capacity.
One positive note about the Orange Line, is that the corridor is preserved for future rail upgrades
I used to think this made sense, but someone pointed out that you need to do something with the existing buses while you upgrade to rail. There are probably solutions, but I think it is going to be very difficult to transition to higher capacity rail once a BRT option gets overloaded.
Erik said:
“While BRT has the drawback of requiring more busses, one can simply increase the service frequency to a matter of a couple minute headways between busses.”
>>>> Right, as they could have done with Interstate Avenue, to meet increased ridership.
Limited stop buses with signal pre-emption could have been added, thus matching or bettering MAX times. With 4 lanes available, you wouldn’t even need a BRT POW. As long as the load factors are there, what’s the problem with operator salaries?
You would be providing a more useful system.
But no, they had to waste over a THIRD OF A BILLION dollars that could have been spent on our freight railroads, for example, which are choking to death, as I understand it. (Too many trolley jollies in this town, I guess.)
It seems that here in Portland, there is no end to the number of logistical problems with our “model” light rail system. What a joke.
Nick –
Interstate MAX already carries double the ridership of the old #5 bus line, and does so with _fewer_ operators.
The capacity of the existing Yellow Line, as built, can carry twice again that ridership without needing to add many additional operators… just add railcars and a couple of extra peak-hour runs.
Operator costs matter: If you assume (not a good assumption, in my opinion) that the current ridership of the Yellow Line could have been served simply by throwing more buses at the problem, you’d need a LOT more operators, 20 or 30 full-time positions depending on how things were allocated, plus a supervisor or two and more dispatch staff. You’re talking upwards of $50 million over 30 years in operating costs, plus the additional buses which would need to be purchased (which wear out faster than light rail cars), etc.
If you include dedicated bus lanes, you’re either hiding costs by pushing road maintenance off onto another department (light rail pays for the maintenance of its own ROW), or you’ve got to build a concrete trackway and maintain it yourself.
Finally, the largest chunk of costs in Yellow Line construction was the Denver Ave. viaduct. (The old automobile viaduct is slated to be replaced soon as part of the Delta Park widening project.) Somebody, somewhere would have to pay for elevated transit lanes, whether rail, dedicated bus, or a wider version of the viaduct replacement project.
If your dedicated bus lanes are on the right, you’ll have the same problem Vancouver BC has: No travel time improvement. If you run in the center, you’ll need to build island platforms.
Finally, a lot of cost assigned to MAX is really “streetscape” improvements. You can debate whether these are really necessary, but as part of a busway project there’s no more or less reason not to include them.
When you’re all done, you’ll have spent a lot of capital money (but not as much initially), have higher operating costs, less likely ridership, and still have the problems that go along with buses: Bumpy ride, local emissions, noise, etc.
FYI, Eugene just built a very nice busway using modern hybrid buses and attractive stations, and already neighborhood opposition to more busways is cropping up.
– Bob R.
Nick –
I see you’ve gone from tossing around “railfans” as though it was some kind of insult, now to “trolley jollies”. Got any more stereotypes? They really bolster your arguments.
– Bob R.
When you’re all done, you’ll have spent a lot of capital money (but not as much initially), have higher operating costs, less likely ridership, and still have the problems that go along with buses: Bumpy ride, local emissions, noise, etc.
How would a BRT immediately have “less likely ridership?” than LRT; generally any type of improvement (even just improvements on existing bus service) generally results in a ridership increase; I’ve never heard of an improvement that results in less ridership. (Except TriMet’s disinvestment in bus service over more LRT/Streetcar spending.)
I’m not sure if BRT is right for Portland but I think it would have made sense in the Portland-Milwaukie corridor where numerous busses use the same exact route into downtown Portland. BRT would have the advantage of having frequent service with LRT style amenities along the corridor to Milwaukie, and then the busses continue as local service routes beyond Milwaukie to Oregon City, Gladstone, Clackamas, etc.
Since no such route existed east to Gresham (busses used a variety of routes east), BRT wouldn’t be a good substitute for MAX.
West of Portland, there were several routes (Sunset Highway, Canyon Road, Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway). TriMet’s role in developing transit service in Beaverton and Hillsboro has been successful by establishing a corridor service and linking it with a variety of local service routes. A few busses that were destined for downtown became feeders, but many of them had low ridership anyways. The only significant loss was the 58-Sunset Highway, which should be restored to provide express service to Forest Grove/Cornelius.
BRT would have very limited success south; there is a “corridor” of sorts between Capitol Highway and downtown along Barbur Blvd. But many busses divert onto Naito with few stops, and Naito rarely backs up.
However such is not to suggest I support making an immediate call for more MAX – TriMet could easily improve bus line performance by improving vehicles and bus stops, and taking more steps to ensure service reliability. Bus lanes, more signals with pre-emption devices, better stop locations/designs, and newer/more reliable busses, would do much to improve service and ridership without the massive capital expense of LRT or even BRT.
Just remember that even MAX has regular service disruptions from time to time, and who is called to rescue the stranded passengers? A bus. MAX/LRT has certain benefits, some of which TriMet cannot fully apply (i.e. maximum of two cars due to station design and downtown block lengths), but just as TriMet can add another train, it can add another bus. MAX benefits by having a single train carry several times the load as a single bus – provided that everyone is coming from the same general area, going to the same general area, or at least along the route. Gateway-Portland-Beaverton is an excellent example of where LRT has been an proven success.
I’m hoping the Eugene busway will go a LONG way to busting some of the myths that “rail haters” espouse (ad nauseum). How much did that system cost to build? Does anybody have reliable figures?
Aaron –
Here is a brief FTA description of the Eugene EmX BRT project:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Lanne_Transit_EmX_info_for_FTA_website.pdf
The total project cost was $24 million, including 6 hybrid buses at just under $1 mil each.
Most of the capital costs went to the approx 2.4 miles of BRT concrete transitway and stations, which are “single-tracked” (buses must wait for opposite-direction buses to clear the transitway before proceeding.)
This puts the infrastructure, station, and signalization costs in excess of $6m/mile, perhaps as high as even $7.5 million (it’s not easily broken out from the figures I’ve been able to find.)
That puts it at about half the cost per track-mile of a streetcar system, for example. (Recent Portland Streetcar extensions have come in at about $12.5 mil per track mile.)
But this is for a system with less than 60% of the ridership of the Portland Streetcar, and due to EmX’s single-track nature it is not clear that adding extra buses will significantly help capacity in the corridor.
PS… Before anyone complains that comparing Portland Streetcar ridership to EmX ridership is unfair because a huge portion of the Portland Streetcar’s route goes through Fareless Square, please note that EmX is heavily promoted as being completely fare-free.
– Bob R.
In high capacity corridors how do you get from BRT to LRT when the demand is there without blowing the BRT system out of the water? Maybe you are just better off getting the rails in place from the get-go.
Once you decide to dedicate ROW to transit what is the advantage to not going rail? some up front capital costs are less, but operational costs, as per Bob, are a lot more.
Without dedicated ROW, we are not talking about reliable, let alone fast, high capacity transit, just a suped up bus line with fancy paint.
Thanks for the info, Bob.
Wasn’t the increased per-mile figure for the Lowell extension due to the fact that there was no improved streets along part of the alignment? So it wasn’t like the earlier segments where they only had to excavate the trackbed about 12″ then add the catenary poles and wires.
Aaron –
You are correct that more had to be done for the Lowell extension. How the various costs were allocated between departments, though, I’m not sure.
– Bob R.
Bob R.:
“I see you’ve gone from tossing around “railfans” as though it was some kind of insult, now to “trolley jollies”. Got any more stereotypes? They really bolster your arguments.”
>>>> Well, I guess then that I’m insulting myself too, as I was railfanning systems in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Chicago, etc. before a lot of posters here were ever conceived.
Just because I believe that rail operations are not suitable for Portland doesn’t mean they are not suitable for other localities.
The thing is that I am wise to the game that’s being played here in Portland when it comes to transit.
BTW, yesterday I took the 5:22 PM Yellow line from SW 9th to Kenton. ONE CAR TRAIN with a number of standees.
BTW, yesterday I took the 5:22 PM Yellow line from SW 9th to Kenton. ONE CAR TRAIN with a number of standees.
Yes, as has been demonstrated numerous times, A) the Yellow Line is popular, and B) capacity may be easily expanded by adding light rail cars with no need for additional operators.
Is your minimum standard for service now No Standees at Peak Hour? That might be nice, but then I suspect someone might accuse TriMet of spending too much money on light rail because there are empty seats available at peak times.
– Bob R.
Also, Nick, regarding the capacities of that one-car train:
Applying consistent standards of about 3.5 sq. ft of passenger area per person across multiple vehicle types, you get (approximately):
* Standard 40′ Bus: 82 (New Flyer D40LF)
* BRT 60′ Bus: 115 (New Flyer DE60LF)
* Portland Streetcar: 150
* 2-car LRV train (Existing MAX): 400 (211 for Type I, about 200 for Type II/III)
* 2-car LRV train (New MAX cars on order): 424 (212 x 2, Houston S70 specs)
So that full one-car MAX train you rode would have required 3 standard buses or 2 “BRT” style buses (and thus 1 or 2 additional operators) to provide the same service. Once ridership reaches a level where crowded 2-car trains become the norm at peak hour, then you’d need 5 standard buses or 4 “BRT” buses to serve those passengers.
The Yellow Line runs 6X an hour at peak (a train approximately every 10 minutes)… regular buses would have to run every 2 minutes and BRT buses would have to run every 2.5 minutes. Such tight schedules would lead to bunching problems and schedule unreliability, not to mention huge operating costs.
The Yellow Line has the lowest ridership of any of the MAX lines (not surprisingly, it is only a 5.5 mile line) and yet it already provides a level of service that would be difficult to match with a BRT system.
If we had built BRT instead, in 10 years people would be complaining of severe overcrowding and service disruptions and wondering why rail hadn’t been selected in the first place.
Portland is ready for rail in key corridors. The ridership demonstrates that fact.
– Bob R.
I said my one car train had a NUMBER of standees–it was nowhere near “full.” (This was leaving the rose Quarter.) Nothing that a combination of regular and articulated buses could have handled.
“Well, I guess then that I’m insulting myself too, as I was railfanning systems in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Chicago, etc. before a lot of posters here were ever conceived.” -Nick
So, you were cheerleading for rail in these cities in the 50’s and 60’s, when they were much smaller than they are today, and when gas was cheap, but somehow Portland in the 21st Century doesn’t warrant the same level of transit services? That makes no sense. You do know that Portland is now bigger than Pittsburgh, right?
“The thing is that I am wise to the game that’s being played here in Portland when it comes to transit.” -Nick
Really? You’re “wise” to the grand conspiracy that wants to put HCT in high density corridors so that growth can be concentrated around rail stations instead of sprawling throughout the entire Willamette Valley? I guess we’re busted, you figured it all out. Now we can’t follow through with our evil scheme, darn it.
Nothing that a combination of regular and articulated buses could have handled.
What? Are we saying that Portland is no longer suitable for bus service? That bus service cannot be added/increased to match loads?
* Standard 40′ Bus: 82 (New Flyer D40LF)
* BRT 60′ Bus: 115 (New Flyer DE60LF)
* Portland Streetcar: 150
* 2-car LRV train (Existing MAX): 400 (211 for Type I, about 200 for Type II/III)
* 2-car LRV train (New MAX cars on order): 424 (212 x 2, Houston S70 specs)
What about the 1-car trains that are predominate on the Red and Yellow Lines? Those are conveniently overlooked. Even at 200 passengers, two articulated busses would handle the load easily.
Yes – two articulated busses require two drivers. One LRT (one or two cars) requires one operator. LRT requires a dedicated trackway that can’t be used by anything else. LRT has no ability to detour in the event of a service interruption. LRT cannot be easily relocated to meet service changes. A bus can move up or down a block, around construction, around a wreck, around a downed power line, etc.
LRT is great when traffic levels demand it. But to suggest that busses can in no way meet the demand, well then I guess someone better tell TriMet to shut down the bus operation. Two out of three Portland transit users use the bus.