Advantages and Disadvantages of BRT

Traditionally, the main advantage of BRT, as opposed to rail, has been the lower initial cost of implementation. Buses are cheaper to buy than rail
cars, and can be stored at the existing garage instead of a new facility that rail lines require. In addition, BRT does not require the laying or rail or
acquisition and construction of private rights of way. Furthermore, certain elements of BRT (like fancy bus stops) can be implemented at a later
date rather than be required at the start. An additional advantage not always employed is the ability for other bus routes to use the BRT
infrastructure for at least part of the journey, thus greatly increasing the flexibility and reach of the BRT network.

Two frequently cited disadvantages of BRT are that it cannot attract discretionary riders and its construction will not lead to redevelopment of its
service area. It is argued that discretionary riders, who own cars but may choose to take transit if it suits them, will not ride buses because of the
negative connotation of the bus with the poor. Another argument is that since BRT is not permanent, unlike rail (it is easy to change the street the
bus travels down but not easy to pick up and relocate rail tracks), it is unlikely to cause developers to develop around it - after all, why spend the
money on building near something that enhances the value of the development when the enhancement possibly can move away?
Implementation of BRT
Many advocates of BRT cite the case of Curitiba, Brazil, who built one of the first BRT systems in the late 1970's. Amongst other things,
Curitiba's BRT system features off street fare purchase and segregated lanes. Since it's construction the system has been extended numerous
times.

Arguably the best example of BRT in North America is the system of transitways in Ottawa, ON. Frequent service is provided along segregated
rights of way and freeways both by routes that only traverse the transitway and express routes operating from outlying suburbs to downtown.
Wildly successful since its introduction in the early 1980s, the system is constrained from a short street running section in downtown Ottawa. The
extremely large number of buses that operate on the transitway causes congestion along this short stretch, especially during peak periods. Due to
this congestion, the city is considering converting the transitway to a light rail line.
In addition to Ottawa, Los Angeles has wholeheartedly embraced the concept of BRT. Los Angeles exhibits two kinds of BRT - traditional and
BRT "light". Los Angeles's traditional BRT line is the Orange Line. Opened in the mid '00's, the Orange Line operates through the San Fernando
Valley from North Hollywood to Warner Center. The corridor, which was initially slated to be a rail line before intense opposition to the concept
by residents along the proposed line forced its conversion to bus, features a combination of private right of way, segregated lanes on an arterial,
and a short section of street running. Although the Orange Line has been a large success, further expansion is hampered by its lack of right of way
segregation. For example, the signal priority it has at grade crossings will not work if the line operates more frequently than every four minutes.
Los Angeles's extensive network of "rapid" bus routes represents a BRT "light" network. The rapid routes operate in mixed traffic with stops
every 1/2 - 1 mile and have for the most part standard bus stops. As the vast majority of rapid routes (and all the most successful ones) are former
limited stop routes operating along the same route, one could fairly say that the differences between the rapid routes and the old routes is merely
cosmetic. After an extensive roll out of rapid routes in the past few years, Metro (Los Angeles's countywide transit service provider) has plans to
scale back the service by eliminating some of the lower performing lines.

Future BRT Trends

The flexibility and low cost of BRT seem to be a good fit with the vast majority of decentralized American cities who will never need the
additional capacity rail can provide over buses. However, as long as politicians yearn for photo ops at newly constructed light rail lines light rail
may continue to have the edge. One thing is for certain: American cities need a combination of different kinds of public transit working together
to ensure a vibrant future.
Related
Bus vs. Light Rail: Which Is Cheaper to Operate?
Review of Bus Rapid Transit for the 21st Century
Why People Hate Riding Buses and What We Can Do About It
How Do We Determine Where a Bus Route Should Go?

More from the Web

Powered By ZergNet
Donald Trumps True Net Worth Revealed
The Incredible Career, Fame and Fortune of Carrie Fisher
50 Stores With the Best and Worst Return Policies
 Meet The Richest Celeb You've Never Heard Of

PUBLIC TRANSPORT
How to Market Transit
Transit Laws: How Does State, Federal, and Local Legislation Affect the Transit Industry?
How Transit Is Funded: An Overview of Types of Transit Funding and Transit Funding Programs Administered by the Federal, State, and Local
Governments
Pictures of Transit
Transit Vehicles
Transit Technology
Transit Infrastructure
Current Projects in Transit
Transit Service Planning: How Buses and Rail Networks Go From Lines on a Map to Carrying Millions of People Per Year
Book Reviews
 How Safe is Transit?
All About Transit Employment
Transit Internet Resources
How Well Are Individual Transit Systems Serving the Public? Find out here. In addition, read here about transit professionals who are
revolutionizing the industry.

About.com
About Money
Public Transport
Transit Vehicles

The True Operating Costs Between Bus

and Light Rail
Bus vs. Light Rail: Which Is Cheaper to Operate?
Ads
Bus Transit

Light Rail Schedule

Bus Schedule

Bus Station

Bus Fares

Bus Lines

Bus Companies
 Bus Prices

Bus To

Bus Route

Gary Conner/Photolibrary/Getty Images

By Christopher MacKechnie

Updated June 29, 2016.

One of the never ending arguments in the battle between bus (especially bus rapid transit) and light rail is which costs more. From
the perspective of capital costs, it is clear that light rail costs more to build than bus rapid transit, due to the requirement for tracks,
the electric catenary, electrical substations, and other infrastructure that buses do not need. In addition, light rail lines likely need
their own garages, while bus rapid transit lines can store their buses at existing bus depots. The difference in capital costs greatly
diminishes is true BRT - buses operating on exclusive rights-of-way like in Ottawa, ON - are built instead of "lite" BRT, which is
basically express or limited stop buses operating along the street.
Operating Costs

In terms of operating costs, it is often argued that light rail is cheaper to operate than buses because the fact that the capacity of
light rail is so much greater than buses allows for fewer light rail trains to be run than buses operated along a corridor for the same
number of passengers.

CONTINUE READING BELOW OUR VIDEO

How To Negotiate Your Bills Lower

0:00

0:00

It is true that one light rail train consisting of three sixty feet long cars can carry as many people as four and one-half regular buses.
What this means is that assuming passenger load remains constant, a light rail train that has three-car consists operating every ten
minutes would need to be replaced by standard buses operating almost every two minutes (six light rail trains per hour = 27.5
standard buses per hour). If there is enough demand along a corridor to operate buses every two minutes, then a light rail train
would have lower operating costs than buses.

How Often Do Light Rail Lines Operate?

Unfortunately, with few exceptions - including almost none of the cities shown in the accompanying table - American cities do not
have bus corridors that have sufficient demand to operate buses every two minutes. Instead, cities are choosing to operate their light
rail lines as often or more often than existing bus service. Replacing a bus route operating every 15 minutes with even a two-car light
rail train operating every 15 minutes is the equivalent of increasing corridor capacity by three hundred percent (a two-car light rail
train is the equivalent of three standard buses). While ridership is likely to increase due to the introduction of trains, it is unlikely to
increase by three hundred percent.
In fact, it would be nice if transit agencies built light rail lines along already busy bus transit corridors, but unfortunately many of them
do not. For every Phoenix that built its first light-rail line along the path of the city's busiest bus route, there are Denver and Salt Lake
City, two places who decided to build light rail lines along existing railroad and freeway rights of ways rather than where transit
demand is located. In fact, the busiest bus routes in both Denver and Salt Lake City are nowhere near where the rail lines are built.

All of the above would be bad enough if it cost the same amount to move one bus and one light rail vehicle. Unfortunately, as the
table below shows, it is much more expensive, on average, to move one light rail vehicle as it is one bus. The table, which shows
operating costs per hour for one bus and one light rail vehicle for 15 American cities with both bus and light rail lines (data is from
the National Transit Database website), shows that is costs almost twice as much on average to move one light rail vehicle per hour
versus on bus ($233 per hour for one light rail vehicle versus $122 per hour for one bus).
The table shows a much wider range in the cost of operating light rail vehicles ($124.01 - $451.33 per hour) than buses ($84.61 -
$163.96), although if we throw out the two outliers in light rail costs (Los Angeles and Dallas) the range is reduced to $124.01 -
$292.51. It is unclear to me why Dallas and Los Angeles light rail costs are so much greater than the other agencies.

Why Does Light Rail Cost More?

There are several reasons why it would cost more to operate one light rail vehicle versus one bus. First and foremost there is the
cost of maintaining the track right of way and associated switches and signaling. Second, there is the cost of maintaining the light rail
stations and associated parking lots - including the cost of employing ticket collectors, security, and maintenance workers. Finally, in
certain cases the cost of electricity to operate the trains may be greater than the cost of fuel for buses - a trend that is likely to
continue in the future as electricity prices are driven higher due to requirements to include alternative energy sources while transit
agencies continue to take advantages of low prices for natural gas brought about by the current glut in supply. In fact, a major
Southern California transit agency reported an almost 500% increase in operating costs per mile when they replaced natural gas
buses on a route with electric buses.
Overall, it is more expensive to operate one light rail vehicle than one bus. Because of this fact, cost-effective use of light rail
requires a large passenger demand - a demand that only exists in a few American cities, most of which already have extensive rapid
transit systems. While rail may be more attractive to the choice rider, should we really put the financial stability of our transit systems
at risk by building and operating light rail lines in areas that do not have enough demand to support them?