Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [carfree_cities] Bus Rapid Transit

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Dawson
    ... We have bus lanes in Montreal as well. ... When you say guided busway , do you mean buses with those small side mounted wheels on the front? ... Since
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Philip wrote:
      >> As far as I know transitway construction costs have ranged from some
      >> where between $16 million to $58 million (CDN) a kilometre.
      >>
      >We don't have fully separated Bus transitways in the UK, but where
      >extensive bus priorities,

      We have bus lanes in Montreal as well.

      >including short stretches of guided busway,

      When you say "guided busway", do you mean buses with those small side
      mounted wheels on the front?

      >has
      >been introduced in Wolverhampton (just north of Birmingham), I understand
      >the total cost for 11 kilometers (7 miles) was £3.5 million. I guess that
      >would be about $1m (CDN) per mile - except this figure was supposed to
      >include the 14 new buses as well as the infrastructure. Similar,
      >successful schemes also operate in Edinburgh, and Leeds.

      Since there's less infrastructure, no wonder it's cheaper.

      >In contrast, the initial LRT line in Manchester cost over £120 million,
      >which is about £7 million a mile. However, this was essentially a Heavy
      >Rail conversion, and subsequent extensions are/will cost considerably
      >more, as Houses, School playgrounds, farmland etc have to be compulsorily
      >purchased and destroyed (just like with major Roads)!

      I'd like to who is planning this. Dawson
    • philip@aal.cix.co.uk
      ... Yes. ... GMPTE, the local Government Agency that oversees public transport in the county - and are currently my employers. The above observations are
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > >including short stretches of guided busway,
        >
        > When you say "guided busway", do you mean buses with those small side
        > mounted wheels on the front?

        Yes.
        >
        >
        > >In contrast, the initial LRT line in Manchester cost over �120 million,
        > >which is about �7 million a mile. However, this was essentially a Heavy
        > >Rail conversion, and subsequent extensions are/will cost considerably
        > >more, as Houses, School playgrounds, farmland etc have to be
        > compulsorily purchased and destroyed (just like with major Roads)!
        >
        > I'd like to (know?) who is planning this.

        GMPTE, the local Government Agency that oversees public transport in the
        county - and are currently my employers.
        The above observations are largely to do with the Ashton-under-Lyne
        extension, which is definitely going ahead. The School playground is
        actually just reduced in size - not least to keep the actual Line a safe
        distance from the School premises. I believe the School has been
        "compensated".
      • Ronald Dawson
        ... So I see. http://www.gmpte.gov.uk/newsdesk/library/ashmetb.html Dawson
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Philip wrote:
          >GMPTE, the local Government Agency that oversees public transport in the
          >county - and are currently my employers.
          >The above observations are largely to do with the Ashton-under-Lyne
          >extension, which is definitely going ahead. The School playground is
          >actually just reduced in size - not least to keep the actual Line a safe
          >distance from the School premises. I believe the School has been
          >"compensated".

          So I see. http://www.gmpte.gov.uk/newsdesk/library/ashmetb.html Dawson
        • Chris Bradshaw
          As an Ottawan, I find the disadvantages of busways to be greater than Ryan mentioned. Because the Ottawa system was built to allow later conversion to light
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            As an Ottawan, I find the disadvantages of busways to be greater than
            Ryan
            mentioned.

            Because the Ottawa system was built to allow later conversion to light
            rail, it is
            more costly than either alone. For instance, the grade of the
            right-of-way was
            limited to accommodate the more limited capability of rail, but the
            width of the
            right-of-way had to be wider than needed by light rail due to the need
            for
            additional snow storages and the decision to allow buses to pass each
            other in the
            stations and most everywhere else. Also, security is expensive, since
            stations had
            to be below/above-grade rights-of-way, although bus-only would allow
            stations to be
            at-grade, thus accessing the natural security ("eyes on the street")
            that comes
            with at-grade stations. Below/above grade stations are also cheaper to
            build.

            The system has also failed to stimulate infill development at the
            stations (they
            are really only stops, since buses for different routes don't have
            unique "docking"
            areas). This is because of one of the so-called advantages: reduced
            need to
            transfer (whereas rail systems require transfers between two different
            systems for
            the collector and the long-haul portions of th trip, busways don't).
            The lack of
            transfering means that there is little extra pedestrian traffic at the
            transfer
            points and also, those wanting to board the system at these points often
            cannot
            find an empty seat. Add to that the fact that those coming from further
            out
            usually don't pay extra for their seats for the longer trips they get.

            For those wanting to limit transfers, rail provides a different
            solution: live
            closer to the main lines, rather than in the far corners of sprawled
            subdivisions.
            The bus sustem, by reaching the latter areas of cul-de-sacs and
            crescents) reduces
            the amount of walking (and cycling) that transit commuters will do
            (often to avoid
            the wait for a connector bus, when the walk isn't that far), and it
            reduces the
            reliance by people on the shopping and services near their home (and
            this
            discourages such outlets ever being located in the first place).

            Most people today don't live or work near these "conveniences." As a
            result, even
            if they can commute to job/school by bus/walking/cycling, they can't
            "chain"
            personal-business destinations into those trips, as SUV (single-occupant
            vehicle)
            commuting can. Either workplaces will have to provide these outlets
            within a short
            walk of workplaces, or neighbourhoods will have to provide them. Else,
            we will
            never get people out of cars.

            Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa

            = = = = =

            "Lanyon, Ryan" wrote:

            > Ottawa, Canada probably has one of the first major bus rapid transit systems
            > (see www.octranspo.com). Briefly, some advantages and disadvantages are:
            >
            > Advantages:
            > - routes are flexible, and can use the rapid transit system for part of the
            > way, primarily through downtown, preventing the need to transfer (we have a
            > number of express buses that offer door-to-door service from suburbs via
            > neighbourhood collectors and then the rapid transit system)
            > - the system can easily go from dedicated bus-only roadways to dedicated bus
            > lanes, which works well when the project is built in phases (no need for
            > immediate grade separation or new infrastructure)
            > - steeper grades are more easily accomodated (assumption)
            > - the system can be integrated into the local expressways. Bus-only lanes
            > on expressways immediate show stalled car commuters the benefits of taking
            > transit (works with rail if the line runs parallel or over the highway).
            >
            > Disadvantages:
            > - the usual down sides of bus transportation - noise, pollution, social
            > stigma
            > - rail transit is still seen as preferred. We're building our first light
            > rail line (on existing track), but there is talk of extending the rail
            > system and replacing the bus-only ways
            > - buses can get held up in traffic where the system merges with other roads
            > - too many buses (and drivers) are needed in heavy volumes that could be
            > served with fewer trains (capacity and cost issues)
            >
            > I think in general what we've experienced is that the system works well for
            > a city under 1,000,000. Our metro area recently surpassed that mark, and
            > new strains and pressures are pushing us toward light rail instead.
            >
            > The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of my
            > employer.
            >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Craig Bollen [mailto:craigb@...]
            > > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 11:11 AM
            > > To: 'carfree_cities@...'
            > > Subject: [carfree_cities] Bus Rapid Transit
            > >
            > >
            > > I've never had the opportunity to use a system like the
            > > proposed Bus rapid
            > > Transit below.
            > > Does anyone have any experience? Because the bus transit
            > > ways are fixed
            > > does the line have the same benefits as a typical rail line?
            > > Any Opinions?
            > >
            > > http://www.ltd.org/brt1.html
            > >
            > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
            > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
            > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            >
            > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
            > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • Lanyon, Ryan
            ... Also, security is expensive, since ... I think you mean at grade stations are cheaper to build. I disagree with your argument that bus-only stations would
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:chris@...]
              > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 10:07 PM
              > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Bus Rapid Transit
              >
              Also, security is expensive, since
              > stations had
              > to be below/above-grade rights-of-way, although bus-only would allow
              > stations to be
              > at-grade, thus accessing the natural security ("eyes on the street")
              > that comes
              > with at-grade stations. Below/above grade stations are also
              > cheaper to
              > build.

              I think you mean at grade stations are cheaper to build. I disagree with
              your argument that bus-only stations would be at-grade. If the system was
              entirely built at grade, then it would not provide rapid transit. Take the
              downtown core, for example, where the buses do run at grade. It provides a
              slower service because of the need to stop at crossings. Grade separation
              speeds up the system, and has nothing to do with modal choice.

              > The system has also failed to stimulate infill development at the
              > stations (they
              > are really only stops, since buses for different routes don't have
              > unique "docking"
              > areas). This is because of one of the so-called advantages: reduced
              > need to
              > transfer (whereas rail systems require transfers between two different
              > systems for
              > the collector and the long-haul portions of th trip, busways don't).

              I think this is really a planning failure, not a failure of a bus-only
              system. Baseline Station is a very large transfer point, where local routes
              feed into the rapid transit system. Unfortunately, there is a six-lane
              arterial on one side, and a large parking lot on the other. Pedestrian and
              cyclist traffic abounds, but there are still no services or transit-based
              infill development.

              > For those wanting to limit transfers, rail provides a different
              > solution: live
              > closer to the main lines, rather than in the far corners of sprawled
              > subdivisions.
              > The bus sustem, by reaching the latter areas of cul-de-sacs and
              > crescents) reduces
              > the amount of walking (and cycling) that transit commuters will do

              Again, the choice of mode for rapid transit does not affect this. If a rail
              system exists, it still has feeder bus routes. In Toronto, numerous buses
              feed into the Finch subway station (not just from the north), so the entire
              public transit network still reaches into the cul-de-sacs and reduces the
              amount of active transportation.

              > The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of my
              employer.
            • J.H. Crawford
              ... Right. Grade separation is almost essential. And I hope we agree that the only direction to go is down, never up! ... This is what s wrong with taking the
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Ryan Lanyon replied:

                >I think you mean at grade stations are cheaper to build. I disagree with
                >your argument that bus-only stations would be at-grade. If the system was
                >entirely built at grade, then it would not provide rapid transit. Take the
                >downtown core, for example, where the buses do run at grade. It provides a
                >slower service because of the need to stop at crossings. Grade separation
                >speeds up the system, and has nothing to do with modal choice.

                Right. Grade separation is almost essential. And I hope we agree
                that the only direction to go is down, never up!

                >I think this is really a planning failure, not a failure of a bus-only
                >system. Baseline Station is a very large transfer point, where local routes
                >feed into the rapid transit system. Unfortunately, there is a six-lane
                >arterial on one side, and a large parking lot on the other. Pedestrian and
                >cyclist traffic abounds, but there are still no services or transit-based
                >infill development.

                This is what's wrong with taking the easy way out: building rapid
                transit systems down the middle of freeway meidans. It's quick
                and cheap, and the stations are anywhere near anything useful.
                Fundamental error.

                >Again, the choice of mode for rapid transit does not affect this. If a rail
                >system exists, it still has feeder bus routes. In Toronto, numerous buses
                >feed into the Finch subway station (not just from the north), so the entire
                >public transit network still reaches into the cul-de-sacs and reduces the
                >amount of active transportation.

                Well, if the area is dense enough (a la Manhattan), it has ONLY rail.




                -- ### --

                J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                postmaster@... Carfree.com
              • Chris Bradshaw
                ... I prefer below-grade r-o-w, but at-grade stations. This involves the transit vehicles climbing into the station, naturally losing momentum via gravity,
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Lanyon, Ryan" wrote:

                  > I think you mean at grade stations are cheaper to build. I disagree with
                  > your argument that bus-only stations would be at-grade. If the system was
                  > entirely built at grade, then it would not provide rapid transit.

                  I prefer below-grade r-o-w, but at-grade stations. This involves the transit
                  vehicles climbing into the station, naturally losing momentum via gravity, and then
                  descending into the trench after the stop, accelerating via gravity again. This
                  "graviotram" technology saves lost of energy, but is more problematic with rail, as
                  the cars are longer (hard to handly the changes in grade) and they have more
                  trouble with hills.

                  > Again, the choice of mode for rapid transit does not affect this. If a rail
                  > system exists, it still has feeder bus routes.

                  Of course, there are still feeder route from the largest stations, but the simple
                  fact that riders have to transfer means that 1) they will consider shopping for
                  things they need at this transfer points, and 2) if it is not so far to get the
                  rest of the way home, walk instead of waiting for the connector bus, providing both
                  "eyes on the street" and giving them more exercise. When a bus-only system is used
                  _and_ the routes run from the burbs all the way to the centre of town (vs. having
                  only transitway-only routes run downtown, in which transfering is very common), the
                  rider has no need to even look up from his book or newspaper to notice the
                  neighbourhood-core shops. If he doesn't patronize them, he and the neighbourhood
                  will lose them.

                  Chris Bradshaw


                  >

                  >
                  >
                  > > The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of my
                  > employer.
                  >
                  > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                  > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.