Tag Archives: Bus

Examples?

Coming soon to Chapel Hill and Wake County!

BRT is coming to the Chapel Hill as part of the North-South Corridor that will connect Southern Village with UNC and continue north along MLK. The study area runs from the Eubanks Road Park & Ride lot (a northern terminus) and the popular Southern Village (the southern terminus) and points in between. The NS BRT with a projected cost of $125 MILLION (8.2 miles @ $15 MILLION per mile) to start service in 2020 with annual operating cost of $3.4 MILLION.

So with BRT, Chapel Hill will get mass public transit sooner (a decade earlier than DOLRT) at fraction of the cost (11% of the cost per mile to build and 12% of the operating cost) with lower local funding requirement due to higher federal grants!  In fact, passengers could ride BRT for ‘fare-free’ and it would still be cheaper (for riders and taxpayers) than DOLRT to operate.

For the same amount of money, we could build 166 miles of BRT (vs 17 miles of DOLRT). Now that would be mass public transit!

Screen Shot 2017-01-16 at 10.06.05 AM.png

corridor-map

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has been implemented in numerous cities across the nation. Below is a partial list under construction:

  1. Wake County, NC – BRT
  2. Chapel Hill, NC – North-South BRT
  3. Bay Area CA – East Bay BRT
  4. Bay Area CA – Santa Clara-Alum Rock BRT
  5. Bay Area CA – Van Ness Avenue BRT
  6. Boston, MA – Silver Line Gateway
  7. Chicago, IL – Central Loop BRT
  8. El Paso, TX – Brio Alameda Corridor
  9. Eugene, OR – West Eugene EmX
  10. Hartford, CT – CT fastrak
  11. Houston, TX – Uptown (Post Oak) BRT
  12. Jacksonville, FL – First Coast Flyer Downtown Phase
  13. Portland, OR – Vancouver Fourth Plain BRT
  14. Salt Lake City, UT – 5600 West BRT Phase 1
  15. Salt Lake City, UT – Provo-Orem BRT
  16. San Diego, CA – South Bay BRT

Below is a partial list of current Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) under development across the nation:

  1. Bay Area CA – Geary BRT
  2. El Paso, TX – Brio Dyer Corridor
  3. El Paso, TX – Brio Montana Corridor
  4. Jacksonville, FL – North Corridor BRT
  5. Jacksonville, FL – Southeast Corridor BRT
  6. Las Vegas, NV – Flamingo Corridor
  7. Omaha, NE – Omaha BRT
  8. Reno, NV – 4th Street/Prater Way RAPID
  9. Richmond, VA – Broad Street BRT
  10. Washington, DC – Corridor Cities Transitway Phase 1
  11. Washington DC – Corridor Cities Transitway Phase 2
  12. Albuquerque NM – Albuquerque Rapid Transit
  13. Bay Area, CA – El Camino Real BRT
  14. Chicago, IL – Ashland Avenue BRT
  15. Columbus, OH – Cleveland Avenue BRT
  16. Lansing, MI – Michigan/Grand Avenue Transit

 

A Better Solution?

While there has been much attention on light rail, the fact is that there are better alternatives that provide our communities with a better and more flexible infrastructure that can evolve to take advantage of new technology advances like autonomous vehicles, electric batteries, new business models and power distribution. By using asphalt roads, we can have a more flexible addition to our transit infrastructure that can be used by BRT, interlined with existing buses in congested areas, promote car pooling by using HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) and eventually leverage that infrastructure with emerging autonomous vehicles … instead of building a ‘steel road’ with rails.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has gained attention as a potentially cost-effective form of high-capacity transit. This is particularly the case in small to medium-size cities that do not have high enough densities or serious enough peak-period traffic congestion to justify fairly expensive fixed-guideway transit investments. — UC Berkeley Urban Densities and Transit: A Multi-dimensional Perspective

growth-of-brt-systems-world-1970-2013

What is Bus Rapid Transit?

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) continues to expand globally, with over 400 BRT lines in 195 cities serving approximately 32.4 million people daily. BRT is a high-quality, high-capacity rapid transit system that improves upon traditional rail transit systems at a significantly lower cost (eg Chapel Hill Transit implementation along NS corridor is estimated to cost less than $15 million per  mile). Vehicles travel in dedicated lanes with traffic signal priority thereby avoiding competing traffic. Passengers walk to comfortable stations, pay their fares in the station, and board through multiple doors just like a train.

So this allows us to take advantage of all of the best attributes of LRT while providing additional flexibility of sharing with other wheel-based (not rail-based) systems and the ability to reconfigured routes to adjust to our changing population and commuting patterns. For example, allowing other buses (potentially autonomous in the future) to ‘interline’ within the dedicated guideway, and ‘platooning‘ automated vehicles within the same guideway. A sort of flexible smart vehicle HOV lane which can evolve as technology changes and adapt to changing traffic patterns.

Interlining refers to the ability of local bus routes, including feeder bus services to utilize the BRT running way for a portion of their trip. It is an accepted practice for BRT systems and allows more transit users to benefit from the guideway investment.

And with the federal government expected to cover 80% of the BRT costs, would allow us to stretch our local taxes even further. In addition, BRT guideways could provide additional utility for emergency response vehicles (improving response times) and could be used for evacuation route due to natural disaster, etc

Indy-Connect_Explaining-BRT-1024x654Graphic courtesy of Indy Connect

Coming soon to Chapel Hill and Wake County!

BRT is coming to the Chapel Hill as part of the North-South Corridor that will connect Southern Village with UNC and continue north along MLK. The study area runs from the Eubanks Road Park & Ride lot (a northern terminus) and the popular Southern Village (the southern terminus) and points in between. The NS BRT with a projected cost of $125 MILLION (8.2 miles @ $15 MILLION per mile) to start service in 2020 with annual operating cost of $3.4 MILLION.

So with BRT, Chapel Hill will get mass public transit sooner (a decade earlier than DOLRT) at fraction of the cost (11% of the cost per mile to build and 12% of the operating cost) with lower local funding requirement due to higher federal grants!  In fact, passengers could ride BRT for ‘fare-free’ and it would still be cheaper (for riders and taxpayers) than DOLRT to operate.

For the same amount of money, we could build 166 miles of BRT (vs 17 miles of DOLRT). Now that would be mass public transit!.

corridor-map

In addition to Chapel Hill, Wake County is planning to implement cost-effective BRT for 20 miles at $347 million ($17M per mile). Financially, Bus Rapid Transit is a better ‘price performer’ and maximizes our return on tax dollar investment over Light Rail. As a matter of fact, for the estimated $400 million in local taxes set aside for DOLRT, we could fund the NSCBRT and an equivalent Durham Orange BRT and still have funds left over! All from changing the technology to use rubber wheels rather than steel wheels.

DOLRT_budget.001

A study by the Institute of Transportation and Development Planning that analyzed 21 transit projects in 13 cities across the United States and Canada. Based on their in depth research and analysis, they concluded that there is no case in the United States where Light Rail should be favored over Bus Rapid Transit. Any perceived advantages of LRT over BRT are primarily aesthetic and political rather than technical.

Long term potential of BRT versus LRT?

One of the major advantages of BRT over proposed DOLRT is that it is much more flexible and can be integrated into our overall transportation infrastructure. Think about all of the rail lines and how much space they consume (50′ right of way for LRT vs 12′ for a highway lane or roughly equivalent to 4 lanes), and the majority of the time they are not being used. Sitting there, waiting for the next train to arrive. And only trains can use it, and cannot be shared with other vehicles. LRT also requires additional constraints (and expense) with limits on how steep the steel roads can be and require (exclusive) “overhead” electrification infrastructure to distribute the electricity (and losing 7% in distribution along the guideways) along the 17 miles.

LRTvHWY_capacity

BRT on the other hand uses roadways that can be shared now! For example, with a dedicated BRT lane, other buses can ‘hop on and off’ in short segments to bypass areas with traffic congestion. As new technologies continue to evolve, BRT and it’s infrastructure can potentially take advantage of these disruptive innovations. For example, advances in wireless / induction charging, solar roads, batteries, photovoltaics, thermoelectrics, autonomous vehicles, and many other breakthroughs. Investments in BRT infrastructure would provide flexibility and ‘future-proof’ our transit investments.

Wireless (induction) charging is already powering buses in Texas, Utah, Berlin, Mannheim (Germany) and London. eBuses in Torino, Italy have used induction charging since 2003, Utrecht (Netherlands) since 2010, Gumi (South Korea) since 2013. And France is installing 1000 km of solar roads over the next 5 years.

lead_large

SOURCE: The UK Is Getting All Charged Up Over ULEV Roadways

Automated buses

The self-steering bus developed by California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways follows magnetic strips embedded in the road, although drivers still handle acceleration and braking and can take full control of the bus at any time. The technology could make life better for passengers by increasing efficiency, and could cut the cost of rapid transit systems.

“The magnetic guidance system developed at UC Berkeley can both improve safety and provide a smoother ride for our passengers,” says Chris Peeples, president of the board of directors for the Bay Area transit agency AC Transit. “The system has the potential to make bus rapid-transit routes — particularly those that involve bus-only lanes — as efficient as light rail lines, which in turn will make buses more efficient in getting people out of their cars.” — Look Ma, No Hands! Automated Bus Steers Itself

Reports

Below are additional reports and analysis on Light Rail projects in the United States

More Efficient?

Advocates portray the No Build option as perpetuating unsustainable urban sprawl, and that the only option is to build a light rail system. Let’s look at this a little closer.

The latest revised DOLRT  projects 27,000 daily boardings (with NCCU extension in 2040) during 18.5 hours of daily operation across the 17.7 mile circuit (at a cost of $2.5 BILLION or $141 million per mile) to serve an average 730 passengers per hour (on each track). Running 150 train trips per day will result in an average ‘load factor’ of 10 passengers per vehicle mile traveled; or utilize 2% of the 500 passenger capacity heralded by GoTriangle. So for every one train that travels at the cited 500 passenger capacity, there will be ~50 trains running empty. Low capacity utilization is not  environmentally or economically sound.

While advocates will argue that LRT has higher ‘capacity’, it will not necessarily mean that it has higher ‘usage.’ We should not confuse capacity with usage.

no_build.jpg

So how does that compare to the much hated highway? Well, not so well. A typical highways can accommodate 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (human driven), utilizing about 5% of roadway capacity. And as autonomous vehicles become pervasive, this capacity will increase significantly, as the vehicles will be able to ‘platoon’ at much closer proximity thereby dramatically increasing the capacity of our existing roadway infrastructure. By using BRT, we will be able to organically add this capacity; whereas with LRT relying on steel rails, we will not, as it will be dedicated to only for the train and we will not be able to share with other autonomous vehicles.

no_build_cap.jpg

Generally, one-half or more of the light rail riders formerly rode bus services that were replaced by the rail service. The new ridership attracted to light rail from freeways is in fact quite small compared to the carrying capacity of a single freeway lane. The average freeway lane in US metropolitan areas that have built new light rail systems (since 1980) carries four times as many people per mile as light rail. Even signalized surface streets average twice as many people per mile as light rail. — Breach of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth in Charlotte

The mean travel time to work according to the 2014 US Census is 21.5 minutes (Durham County) and 22.0 minutes (Chapel Hill), yet the proposed DOLRT will take 46 minutes (+10 minutes at terminus) . Now include the waiting time for the next train, the time to get to/from the station (via Park&Ride, Kiss&Ride, bicycle, walking, or bus transfer), it will even be LONGER. So how is this faster than the automobile that it is supposed to replace?

It’s Faster?

While many light rail projects (including DOLRT) are justified on the basis that it is a fast and modern, the facts suggest otherwise.

For example, the Durham-Orange Light Rail Train project in 2011 projected 34 minutes to travel the 17 mile stretch connecting UNC Hospital to Alston in East Durham (with 12,000 daily boardings). The transit time in 2015 is now estimated to be 44 minutes +10 minutes at terminus (with 23,000 daily boardings) — an increase of 30% in travel time − and slower than the 39 minutes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative (that was dismissed in favor of LRT due to ‘speed’).

e2e_time.jpg

The mean travel time to work according to the 2014 US Census is 21.5 minutes (Durham County) and 22.0 minutes (Chapel Hill). Now include the waiting time for the next train, the time to get to/from the station (via Park&Ride, Kiss&Ride, bicycle, walking, or bus transfer), it will even be LONGER. So how is this faster than the automobile that it is supposed to replace?

During hot summer days, light rail trains must slow down for safety to counter the expansion of the steel rails and overhead copper power lines − making DOLRT even slower.

lrt_slow

track_buckle

GoTriangle has demonstrated inherent light rail bias by comparing circuitous bus routes (that could be easily rerouted by GoTriangle to meet this ‘demand’) in order to justify their conclusions.

For example, if the intended route to connect UNC Hospitals with Duke University Hospital, Downtown Durham and Alston a more direct route along 15-501 would reduce distance by 10% and align with a high population density corridor that would support projected daily boardings.

dolrt_google_time

Environmentally Friendly?

While many environmentalists quickly point out the adverse impact of the automobile — they quickly gloss over the environmental impact of near-empty light rail trains. The environmental impact of light rail, as a system, is considerably worse. The automobile takes passengers directly point-to-point (from origin to destination), but light rail requires supplemental trips to/from the station, whether via park-and-ride, kiss-and-ride, or bus.

Many environmentalists support rail-based transit for environmental reasons, but to date only BRT projects have been certified as greenhouse gas-reduction projects by the Clean Development Mechanism defined in the Kyoto Protocol (see Bogotá and Mexico City).  Additionally, the volume of vehicle-specific emissions that LRT and electric trolley bus systems produce depends on how their electric power is generated. If the source is coal-fired power plants, then the system may actually produce more CO2 than normal diesel vehicles do, even though people are exposed to fewer emissions on the street. Buses are major producers of particulate emissions unless they use low-sulfur fuels, have particulate traps and clean engines, or run on some source of fuel that is an alternative to diesel.

Compared to rail systems, BRT systems also tend to be less intensive users of concrete and steel. Producing steel and concrete and building underground or elevated concrete structures generates a large amount of CO2. Many heavy-rail metro projects cannot reduce enough operations-related carbon emissions during their first twenty years to compensate for their construction-related CO2 emissions. Surface LRT generates less construction-related CO2 but still tends to generate more than a BRT project does. — ITDP study, More Development For Your Transit Dollar

Using the overly optimistic 27,000 daily boardings projection (revised with NCCU extension in 2040) running 150 train trips per day across the end-to-end 17.7 mile line will result in an average ‘load factor’ of 10 passengers per vehicle mile traveled; or utilize 2% of the 500 passenger capacity heralded by GoTriangle. So for every one train that travels at the cited 500 passenger capacity, there will be ~50 trains running empty. Low capacity utilization is not  environmentally or economically sound.

From an energy intensity perspective, this low utilization has a devastating impact on DOLRT energy efficiency. With an average of 10 passengers per mile results in 6327 BTU per DOLRT passenger mile (63265 BTU per vehicle mile / 10 passengers per mile) compared to 3144 BTU for car travel or 4071 BTU for bus transit. So per passenger mile, DOLRT uses over twice the amount of energy of an average car!

Transportation Energy Ed34 - table 2.14.png

SOURCE: US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory – Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 34, page 2-19, Table 2.14

Due to the limited coverage of light rail stations, light rail requires altered bus routes to “feed the beast”. These feeders add cost, consume more energy, increase travel distance and increase travel times, while compounding the traffic congestion they are supposedly trying to alleviate. The light rail system is forced to provide an entire, high-capacity vehicle even when there are only a few riders.

dolrt_rsx

The inconvenient truth is that not a single light rail in the US carries as many passengers as a single highway lane. The myriad of alternatives, like walking, bicycling, carpooling, van-pooling, congestion pricing, telecommuting, flexible working hours, parking reform, pricing strategies to improve bus utilization, etc — largely ignored while the money and attention is consumed by light rail.

DOLRT_energy.jpg

The proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail train has NO new renewable energy requirement and electricity sourced from Duke Energy which has been repeatedly cited for environmental transgressions. Duke Energy generates electricity primarily with nuclear, gas (sourced from ‘fracking’) and coal power plants. The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Duke Energy 13th among corporations emitting airborne pollutants in the United States. The ranking is based on the quantity (80 million pounds in 2005) and toxicity of the emissions. When the high energy costs and carbon emissions during construction are counted, the light-rail line is far “browner” than autos and highways.

Forgetting greenhouse effects during construction?

Neglecting to take into account the emissions associated with constructing buildings like train stations and laying the tracks may make train travel appear far more environmentally friendly than it actually is, the authors found.

“Most current decision-making relies on analysis at the tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production, infrastructure provision, and fuel production required for support,” wrote the authors. “We find that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63 percent for on road, 155 percent for rail, and 31 percent for air systems,” relative to those vehicles’ tailpipe emissions. — How Green is Rail Travel?

Cement manufacturing releases CO2 in the atmosphere both directly when calcium carbonate is heated, producing lime and carbon dioxide, and also indirectly through the use of energy if its production involves the emission of CO2.The cement industry produces about 5% of global man-made CO2 emissions, of which 50% is from the chemical process, and 40% from burning fuel. The amount of CO2 emitted by the cement industry is nearly 900 kg of CO2 for every 1000 kg of cement produced. — Cement wiki