Bus rapid transit

This past week has seen some interesting local inter-blog transit discussion between Andrew, Kuff and Cory. One of the topics that was brought up for discussion was bus rapid transit (BRT).

In my current life in the transportation planning and engineering profession, I've done a lot of bus operations and facilities planning. I've worked on rail and roadway projects as well, but the majority of my time over the past several years has been spent on bus projects, from local bus networks to downtown bus circulators to express bus applications. I've done a fair amount of work with bus rapid transit as well. As such, I thought I'd add my two cents to the discussion.

At the risk of raising the hackles of M1EK or Jeff, let me state that there is nothing inherently wrong with BRT. It is an often-misunderstood mode of public transportation, yet, when it is done correctly, it is a tool that can attract riders and improve urban mobility.

However, there are two very important caveats that need to be kept in mind when it comes to BRT:

1. The definition of "true" BRT is important. A lot of bus services that claim to be BRT really aren't. In a nutshell: if it doesn't have its own right-of-way, it's not really BRT.


2. BRT is not a fully-equivalent alternative to light rail transit (LRT). BRT promoters who try to pass BRT off as "rubber-tired light rail" are, at the very least, exaggerating.
   

On the first point: theoretically, bus rapid transit contains many of the same features and amenities as one would find on a rail line. This includes: all-day service, frequent (10 minutes or less) headways, a route layout that mimics that of a rail line, with named stations spaced at quarter-mile intervals or further, actual station platforms which contain amenities such as benches, canopies, map kiosks, off-vehicle fare collection machines (to speed passenger loading) or real-time passenger information ("next bus" signage), larger vehicles (usually 45' or 60' articulated buses), signal priority systems that give the vehicle the right-of-way at intersections, specific branding (transit agencies such as those in Boston and Los Angeles use line names like the "Silver Line" and the "Orange Line," respectively, to describe their BRT services), and, most importantly, exclusive right-of-way in the form of a dedicated bus lane separated from other types of traffic. This last characteristic is crucial: if a BRT system does not have its own lane(s) and has to operate in mixed traffic, then it's not going to be "rapid," no matter how many other features it might have, and therefore is not BRT.

There are several "better bus" or "quality bus" services in operation around the United States, such as the Metro Rapid service in Los Angeles, "Rapid" services in Oakland and Phoenix, and even the Quickline service here in Houston (that METRO still has yet to implement). These services have many characteristics of BRT: fewer stops, "station-like" amenities at stops, signal pre-emption systems, specifically-branded service with specially-marked vehicles, and even facilities such as "queue-jumper" lanes at intersections. "Better bus" is a step above standard local bus service and definitely has its place in an urban transit network.

But it's not true BRT, because these services do not operate within their own right-of-way. They operate on regular urban arterials, in mixed traffic, and since they usually operate in the right lane they are subject to speed disruptions as they encounter vehicles making right turns at intersections or driveways, illegally-parked vehicles (especially delivery trucks), and slower local buses which make more frequent stops. Some jurisdictions might limit the right lane to buses during certain hours, such as the AM and PM commute periods, which improves the buses' performance but still doesn't equate to true BRT.

I really don't consider point-to-point express bus services, such as the park-and-ride bus routes that use the HOV lanes here in Houston, to be "true" BRT, either. Even they do operate within a reserved right-of-way (albeit with carpools and vanpools), they are special peak-period commuter services, rather than all-day buses serving a corridor with multiple stops.

On the second point: BRT partisans have been pushing the "it's rail on rubber tires!" slogan ever since the Federal Transit Administration, which under the Bush Administration sought to encourage BRT as a lower-cost alternative to rail, officially described BRT as a "rapid mode of transportation that can provide the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of bus." This description is not entirely true, because it overlooks a lot of advantages that LRT has over BRT in terms of capacity (buses carry fewer passengers than light rail vehicles, and cannot be strung together in multiple-vehicle consists), operation (electric traction and steel-on-steel guidance provides quicker acceleration, a smoother ride and less lateral deviation than buses), aesthetics (rail is quieter, does not emit pollutants within the corridor and, deservedly or not, has a much better public image than bus), durability (the lifespan of a bus is 12-15 years, tops, while the lifespan of a rail vehicle is measured in decades; the same is true for concrete pavement versus steel rail) and economic development (due to its permanence of infrastructure, rail has a stronger positive impact on urban development).

That being said, BRT has advantages of its own: it is cheaper, quicker and less disruptive to implement than LRT, and it is more flexible than rail because it is not limited to the extent of the track network (this, in turn, reduces the need for passengers to transfer). In urban corridors that have enough transit demand to warrant improved transit service (relative to standard local bus) but do not generate, nor are expected to generate in the future, enough transit trips to justify the higher cost of LRT, BRT is probably the way to go. But it's not an "all-purpose" replacement for rail transit, no matter what its more passionate promoters might say. They are two different technologies that have two different applications.

Dr. Vukan Vuchic, a professor of transportation planning at the University of Pennyslvania, has literally written the (text)book on urban transit planning in the United States. With respect to comparisons between BRT and LRT, he writes:

In conclusion, BRT and LRT are quite different modes and each one has a significant domain in urban transportation. Any publications that attempt to provide that one of these modes is always superior to the other, or that one of them has no place in urban transportation (such papers against rail transit are frequently produced and widely distributed in the United States), are products of special interest groups and have no professional validity. (Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Economics; p. 591)

My opinion is the same as Dr. Vuchic's - the "rail versus bus" debate, incidentally, is tedious and pointless - and I think that BRT would become a lot more widely accepted by the American public if it were understood for what it really is, rather than promoted as something it isn't (rail) or confused for something that isn't it ("better bus" services).

Andrew has some ideas as to where BRT routes could go, and how they could complement the LRT network, if they were to be deployed here in Houston.