BRT vs Heavy Rail vs Light Rail

[JULES KAYE]

All: Even an out-of-towner like yours truly can see there is never a shortage of discussions on the future of transit in Baltimore. Bus Rapid Transit? Heavy Rail? Light Rail? Each mode, of course, has no shortage of friends or foes; certainly, there is much justification here, as each mode of transport has its share of pros and cons. No one, of course, will deny that Light Rail and Heavy Rail can carry far more passengers than conventional transit coaches.

But, neither Heavy Rail or Light Rail could hope to match the bus for flexibility. Also, the buses have no need for rails, catenary, overhead wiring (or third rail, in the case of Heavy Rail rapid transit). So, it would seem that the bus has much to offer for future generations of Baltimore riders. But, a properly planned Light Rail and/or Heavy Rail line, well thought out and well-planned from the start, indeed can move more people much faster and with greater efficiency than the bus. But.....if either Light or Heavy rail is opted, it starts to get complicated.

NIMBY's, of course, would be out in full force, voicing thier expected opinions. Then, there is the "hot-button" issue of funding. Here is where things can often get quite ugly. Will taxes be raised in order to help finance construction of the new line? Why should people who will have no need for mass transit in any form have to help fund a system that will be of no use to them? Personally, I totally concur with this.

Quite awhile back, I recall reading about an MTA Flx Metro equipped with hardware that would enable it to change traffic signals, enabling it to make better time on its runs. Though, like Light Rail and Heavy Rail, BRT has its positives and negatives, but, it certainly would seem a far more economical solution than going through years of red tape, construction, home/business relocation, etc., that invaibly would be part and parcel of any sort of rail line, be it Heavy or Light Rail.

Articulated coaches on a largely-reserved ROW would seem to be much, much cheaper in the long run, but, of course, BRT operation, just as it would have its friends, certainly will have many opponents. IMO, buses (as a general rule) are far more economical to run than a RAIL system, be it either Light or Heavy rail. HOWEVER, as in any situations, there are, of course, exceptions to the rule.

As I stated earlier, though both Heavy and Light Rail can move huge masses of people far more efficiently and swiftly than buses, it is also a far more expensive enterprise. What do you think? Do you think BRT operation should be given a fighting chance in Baltimore? Or, do you think that it's best left on the drawing boards, and go all the way with rail?

I feel it is also most important to remember, that, just because a BRT system works in one (or more) cities, does not neccesarily mean it will work in Baltimore. Every city has its own unique environs, districts, demographics, etc., making it unwise and unfeasible to think that "one size fits all", when it comes to BRT systems. Or Heavy/Light rail, for that matter. Jules

[JULES KAYE]

Excellent reading (and photos) on Bus Rapid Transit systems; very comprehensive article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

[JULES KAYE]

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Bus_Corridor

[JULES KAYE]

Another excellent BRT site: http://www.nbrti.org/

[JULES KAYE]

Another detailed, comprehensive BRT site: http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm

[JULES KAYE]

Light Rail articles: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-81104210.html

[JULES KAYE]

Interesting site on Heavy Rail rapid transit: http://www.transitridersalliance.org/li ... ransit.asp

[HwyHaulier]

Jules -

Still another third rail I would prefer not to touch, or wizz on! Note some question arises (and, in fairness, should you have alerted?)
about sources. I can see at least one that is hardly credible, if at all, and a self serving opinion piece...

Voting: "Present"

.....................Vern.................

[JULES KAYE]

Hi, Vern: Oh, I see you noted a certain "self-serving piece", too? I COULD have alerted astute readers (present company accepted!), but, I figured....ahhh, shoot! Why spoil the fun?<G> Credibility? You want "credibilty"? Man, you REALLY want it all, huh? Seriously, I've always found it most interesting to read such pieces, just to see just how deeply into the "Roger Rabbit Mystique" ("RRM") these sources are prepared to go!

Seriously, as you and I both are aware of, credibility AND asuteness seem to be truly languishing by the roadside these days! The days of Henry Huntington and Samuel Insull are gone forever, my friend! Recalling now, a line from a hit 1960's tune: "...those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end..." Oh, well....... Jules

[OwlGreene]

Passenger's point of view, something on rails is something permanent. It is something to rely on. It's apparent that developers feel the same way. Developers build around rail lines. While riding local buses I like to observe the atmosphere of the bus as it travels. During its peak hours the ride is ALWAYS cramped, slow and unpleasant. Frowns don the unhappy passengers' faces as the bus waits for every red light the route has to offer. It's hard to walk through the coach. Often passengers on the curb get to watch buses pass them by only to see plenty room in the rear of the coach. This is realistic. Aboard the trains, The atmosphere's far different, even in cramped conditions. On the trains there generally are happier people who don't mind riding. The main difference is that the buses carry folk who pretty much have no alternative. Trains carry the same type of folk, but also seamlessly attract and service folk who do have alternatives. Tourists who like to explore but who don't know the layout well enough to drive, professionals who wouldn't mind the extra few minutes to read or email, blue collar workers who can't be late and appreciate the on-time performance of a rail line, students who live across town and can't afford a 40 minute each way bus ride, bar patrons that may need simplicity in getting home after an evening on the town. Think about it. Here the subway is better than the light rail, and the light rail's better than the bus. The only folk who'll take a bus are the folk who HAVE to take a bus, and that will never change. Because of this well earned stigma against buses, BRT could never equal or even compete with the all-around potential of any type of fixed rail network.

[AdamFlx3204]

Welcome OwlGreene,

You make some very interesting points.

Though the #11 bus takes me to a wider range of interesting places, I am more likely to hop the Light Rail to Lutherville or Hunt Valley on weekends despite being a longer walk. The tighter headways (30 on the bus vs. 15 on the rail) are probably the main factor to me though, since it allows for better flexibility.

To me, every mode has its application, even BRT in the right environment. A BRT "Busway" can be built that can readily be used by conventional buses as well to speed them along to the destination. Multiple routes can service a local neighborhood before entering the busway and speeding to the destination. This allows rapid service to a far wider range of areas. Pittsburgh's East Busway is an example of such versatile usage.

Heavy rail truly requires heavy density, and can be extremely expensive to construct through already built areas. It is the best mover of people but requires the people to be there and ready to ride in order to be cost effective. It's better used for longer trips to me though, as short hops of 1 or 2 closely spaced stations often are more time consuming to use heavy rail due to the station layouts that usually involve climbing and descending. Someone going from Baltimore and Gay to Lexington Market in midday will likely get there faster on a bus at Fayette and Gay than taking Metro.

Light rail (and its "streetcar" type sibling) can be an excellent mode to use as long as its well designed. Too much secluded right of way may leave it away from the ridership generators. Too much street running and the service slows down to being unattractive. Tunnelling and viaducts can be used sparingly to great advantage. I've ridden a number of light rail systems and found that the ones with the most walk-on generators seem to make the best lines. From a rider's perspective, I can truly see this, as the one seat ride to easy walking distance to your destination is likely the best thing you can give a prospective rider, as opposed relying too much on park and ride or feeder buses to support your core.

The bus "stigma" is somewhat overrated. One can and will find people from all walks of life riding buses in New York, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco, among other places.

[OwlGreene]

I went to college in DC, and that city was one that busted the stigma for sure. Being from Baltimore, it was surprising to see how many "shirts and ties" rode Metrobus on a daily basis. So I agree with you there. But DC's roads are so close to critical mass that it's worth the busride to their locals. Perhaps I am altering the topic a bit, but being that we're discussing transit in Baltimore, I gotta stick to what I see and deal with here. In Baltimore, the stigma is alive and well. The bus operators alone (NOT ALL OR EVEN MOST OF THEM; it only takes a few bad apples to scare the customer away from buying) keep people from wanting to ride. Nowadays they can't even tell you any information about a route they're not currently driving. Need info about a transfer? Forget it. How about watching your transfer bus pull away as you're trying to get off a bus and chase it down? It's not just the drivers, it's the passengers too! You have to love the person who stands just behind the driver and slows down everyone trying to swiftly board. Or the guy that ignores the rules and plays Gucci Mane on his cell phone speakers. I could go on forever and lose my point in the making. What i'm saying is that MTA buses have earned too bad a name for themselves to try to attract new customers; already comfortably driving customers. If I wore a shirt and tie, even if MTA did something spectacular and started something BRT, I wouldn't think twice about continuing commuting via car. Besides, most Baltimoreans wouldn't trust the MTA to build an effective BRT system. Plus the carless people that have money catch hacks. I've always said that hacking alone killed the #7 line. Once hacking became prevalent and gave bus riders with extra cash another option, the bus as an option got way less appealing. I grew up bus riding, and because MTA doesn't run on schedule, and only because MTA doesn't run on schedule, I take hacks whenever I can. My whole family does. However. If i'm going anywhere the subway or light rail goes, I'll get a hack to the train. See my point? Other cities who take better care of their bus customers have been able to dodge the stigma. But in places like Baltimore, people will go out of their way to avoid riding a bus. BRT is a good idea when it's appropriate, and can be effective when designed properly. But a bus is a bus.

[OwlGreene]

One more thing that I didn't touch on was the idea of combining light rail and busway applications simply by paving the right-of-way. This would make sense in tons of ways. Think of it. Night owl service along the light rail lines utilizing buses. Potential service expansions via busway lines. More stable service to South Baltimore during times that the rail isn't running. Think about it.......

[bodyman]

love the combined right of way, not far outside the box but far enough to be overlooked.....right on.

[JULES KAYE]

One more thing that I didn't touch on was the idea of combining light rail and busway applications simply by paving the right-of-way. This would make sense in tons of ways. Think of it. Night owl service along the light rail lines utilizing buses. Potential service expansions via busway lines. More stable service to South Baltimore during times that the rail isn't running. Think about it.......

First of all: OwlGreene, welcome to the BEST transit forum going! Look forward to reading more of your posts! Adam/bodyman: Thanks for your opinions as well! OwlGreene; I quite agree; as combined Busways/Light Rail ROW's are commonplace in Europe, it does make sense to "consolidate" the two modes of mass transit, whenever it is practicle. Every mode of public transport, be it on wheels of steel or rubber tires, has both its positives and its negatives.

For too many reasons to go into here, Europe has always been very gung-ho with its mass transit operations, and many cities boast extensive tram/ETB/bus/subway systems. In this country, the "streetcar" had been considered most passe' and old-fashioned for decades. But, when the concept was "reincarnated" in the 70's as "Light Rail", well, then this was another kettle of fish altogether! Just look at how many Light rail systems have sprung up since then in this country.

True, some could have donme with better planning while still on the drawing board. IMHO, the San Diego Trolley was one of the systems where careful planning has seemed to pay great dividends today. Demographics, economics, local politics.......all important factors to be seriously considered before any sort of new mass transit operation is proposed....... Jules