Talk:Bus rapid transit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Transitway confusion

I'm not exactly sure how the categories down near the bottom of the page break down, but I think the University of Minnesota transitway thing seems a little messed up. It might be better described as "dedicated busway with limited stops and traffic light priority", "partial dedicated right-of-way...", or something like that, although the dedicated portion only runs between the Minneapolis and St. Paul campuses (see the top left of [1]). Buses only stop at the ends of the transitway. On each campus, the buses use regular city streets. —Mulad 02:41, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

I'm not very good at editing articles, so maybe someone could add something on the new DART bus rapid transit system in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada? It just started a week or so ago, so it's new.

great job

offtopic and all, but the contributors of this page have put together a great article, in my opinon. I'm taking a class on transportation at my university right now and the article is a great primer that I would even suggest for front-page consideration on wikipedia. pretty smooth and accessible, while staying informative and interesting. Goodralph 08:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

Article is too US centric. Please NPOV. —Cantus…☎ 22:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was impressed by the article. However there are some points that I would like to point out. The article should include some notable BRT examples around the world, not just United States. Also I'm concerned about the layout of the table listing the BRT systems in United States. There are many gaps in that table. Also the marking is quite not acceptable. If somebody wants to edit the article, please remove the x mark and substitute with either yes or no, or fill the gap with dashes. Speaking of tables please relabel some column headings correctly. For example, ltd. stops to limited stops. Otherwise, this article is impressive.

I'm going to remove I removed the NPOV notice and replaced it with an expansion request. While US-centricity isn't is an NPOV issue, it is more precisely a lack-of-information issue. As for the table, there is a notice saying it is incomplete. I added the table because listing busways by specific type seemed to be getting messy. I'll add a note to mouse-over the headings, which should give a tooltip notice in modern browsers with an expanded name. I used abbreviations there because expanding the column titles would result in a very wide table. I suppose I can add footer notes as well for people who don't have tooltips enabled. —Mulad (talk) 19:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC) (comment modified —Mulad (talk) 00:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC))

Heh, plus I think I had a power outage while working on this page a few days back, so I forgot to come back and fix some things. —Mulad (talk) 19:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

An annotation from my European perspective (but with North and South America experience) ... a bus system is adequate for moderate capacity requirements, but above a certain threshold a rail-based system makes more sense. One may call this tram, Stadtbahn, light rail, streetcar. A bus (even articulated or double deck) has a maximum capacity of 50-100 passengers only. My impression is that the larger BRT systems described have such large passenger numbers where (given a level playing field regarding regulations, red tape and such) a rail system is more justified. -- Klaus with K 14:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

article reorganisation and reworking

Based on the last (checked that) revision from 2005-09-15 13:17 my reworking aimed at:

• reorganising the article structure
• preserving the present text material as far as possibly by using cut-and-paste
• removing text only where there was close duplication
• minor modifications to phrases and paragraph when stitching together
• removing a lot of he-sais-she-sais-style
• adding chapters "Advantages and drawbacks", "Situation in Europe" and smaller text parts
• making the article less US-centric

I faced the challenge of not having too much tram and streetcar slip into the BRT text, because a fully developed BRT system shares a lot of features with light rail and in a nutshell is a tram system using shrunk vessels with diesel engine, steering wheel and running on tarmac.

Areas where still some work is needed:

• "BRT in subways" is still disproportionally large, maybe parts of it should be moved into the US-specific chapter
• "Some Controversies associated with BRT" still contains he-sais-she-sais-style in the form of proponents say - opponents say and an entangled arguing line
• "BRT systems in North America - table" is rather huge and displays not well, my gut feeling is to replace it with a simple listing like the other subchapters and create a separate "List of" or "Table of" page
• some good photos would be nice - there is a good one in the Dutch version but its licence is incompatible with commons upload

Waiting for your discussion

Klaus -- Klaus with K 11:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You can find a few more pictures at Silver Line (MBTA). The various "trackless trolley" articles may have a few as well.

Atlant 12:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

While I'd still prefer the Schiphol bus photo nl:Image:ZT busbaan hr.jpg I am quite happy to use the Boston photo. It does show dedicated infrastructure, a fancy vehicle ;-) And even if we get a better photo for the top it is good enough to be reused further down in the text. -- Klaus with K 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Major Changes

This page was formatted oddly. I have fixed that, if you dislike my content changes please do not blanket revert. I made the headers somewhat more logical, and cut a lot of redundant text or text that should not be a part of this article. This article retains a lot of redundancy. DirectorStratton 03:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fear not the blanket revert. In reorganising, reordering and removing the extra carriage returns you have done a good job. And yes, there are some redundancies still remaining, but one has to be careful not to introduce POV when aiming to reduce ballast. Time permitting I'll have a look into the "Comparison with other forms of mass transit" as this lost quite some content. For a start I have moved the Big Table to a new page and left summary information on the main page in line with the style of the other continent list entries. -- Klaus with K 11:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The information in the comparisons section discussed a comparison between all of the mass transit modes as opposed to how BRT compares with other modes, which is why I cut much of the content. DirectorStratton 16:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not all mass transit modes. For an overboarding list have a look at the (mass transit redirected to) public transport page, but even removing the oddballs leaves you with lots of entries. The comparison was with a selection of transit modes, different steps on the capacity ladder. And is there something wrong with a systematic approach instead of doing an enumeration of bilateral comparisons like

• a minibus has a much smaller capacity than BRT
• a bus has a smaller capacity than BRT
• a BRT ...
• a tram has a higher capacity than BRT
• a metro has a much higher capcity than BRT

and repeat this for all of the aspects worth mentioning. -- Klaus with K 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what I attempted to do with my edit. I think this can and should be done with prose rather than a list which takes up far more space without providing more content. DirectorStratton 02:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, prose is the way to go, avoiding subsectioning as far as possible. It is horses for courses with bus, BRT, tram, metro, I'd love to get this into a few text chunks. -- Klaus with K 14:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I still this the BRT Page is a bit of a mess, partially by trying to cover too much and partially because of the amount of space devoted to the merits of this form of Mass Transit.

IMO, the elements of BRT are nothing new, the key to BRT is in combining these elements to create a package that turns a general bus Public transport service into a bus form of rapid transit.

I would also note that only 9 key characteristics of BRT are identified:

High-frequency, all-day service; Bus-dedicated, grade-separated right-of-way; Bus streets and busways; Bus lanes; Bus signal preference and preemption; Traffic management improvements; Off-bus fare collection; Level boarding; Tram-like characteristics)

While the MTA Demonstration Report on Metro Rapid (http://www.mta.net/projects_programs/rapid/rapid.htm) notes 14:

Simple Route Layout; Frequent Service; Headway-based Schedules; Less Frequent Stops; Level Boarding and Alighting; Color-coded Buses and Stations; Bus Signal Priority; Exclusive Lanes; Higher Capacity Buses; Multiple Door Boarding & Alighting; Off-Vehicle Fare Payment; Feeder Network; Coordinated Land Use Planning

One idea to focus the BRT definition would be to separate off the constituent elements as other subjects. Bus Lane, Fare control Bus stop, Grade separation, Transit bus (describing vehicle types) and Land use planning are already subjects in their own right. Others such as Bus Routes, Signal Priority and Boarding & Alighting could justify their own subjects.

Also, the section on "BRT in metro tunnels", while interesting, is hardly a major point of describing BRT. As this issue is really about buses being Diesel powered, it may be better addressed under bus.

Of more interest is how the Cost-benefit analysis is used to justify various forms of Transit (transportation). It is under the latter heading that general comparisons of the various modes (such as capacity) would be better outlined, with the individual mode subjects focusing on the range of characteristics specific to the mode.

The "List of Bus Rapid Transit Systems" could also be better outlined as a separate Category page.

Finally, I do not see why LightRailNow.Org justifies 7 separate references to documents critical of BRT when a simple reference to their web site would seem to be sufficient.

I raise the above as I do not want to change the page without discussion with others who are interested. Tony 17 July 2006

statements need to hold water

I do see some idealistic paragraphs popping up, which risks to turn this article into a wish list and collection of pet projects or magic bullet solutions. For example:

In addition, most trolleybus applications can be converted to true light rail
with the only extra expense being the laying and maintenance of tram tracks in the street.

Laying tracks is a major expense. In addition, trolleybus and tram wires are different indeed, so there is less saving than hoped for by the author of the above statement. As this phrase gives a non-realistic view, I have commented out this passage in the article. -- Klaus with K 11:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Racist?

I'm going to remove the line "The fact that the overwhelming majority of bus riders in many cities is composed of blacks and Latinos serves as a further deterrent to bus ridership by middle-class whites." this may be true to some extent, but it seems a bit ridiculas to put in an encyclopedia. The statement that the "overwhelming majority of bus riders" are minorities isn't backed up, and has no place here. Maybe "The typically lower-class ridership of busses may deter potential middle and upper class riders."

Hello Xcm, not being a US insider I have not that much first hand experience, but I think the issue is really more skin colour and less of some abstract class perception. Your replacement thus is nicer worded but misses the blunt point of the original. However, as this passage would be more appropriate in the bus and not here in the BRT article, in a choice of remove or replace I'd opt for the former.--Klaus with K 16:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In terms of bus vs. other forms of transit the issue is not primarily skin color. Skin color in the U.S. is not quite the obsessive factor in personal choice that many Europeans seem to think it is. Any transit system of any size has a significant mix of ethnicities reflecting the local population. In areas where most transportation is done by automobile, buses tend to be an accomodation for those who can't use a car for certain trips (i.e., if the family car is tied because the breadwinner took it to work or they don't have a car), which necessarily includes poorer people. But there are very few places where a convenient useful transit link would be shunned for race. -- Cecropia 18:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My personal experience supports this. When I once tried to take a bus somewhere in Virginian urban sprawl, the timetable was soooo poor I had to work out something else.

Back to topic...so the above statement would be questionable for bus but even less appropriate here at BRT which tries to avoid some pitfalls of bus done the US way.--Klaus with K 12:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

case of rail to BRT

I can only think of Ardmore in the US; few ever proprose rail lines be turned into BRT (comment on 13 Jan 2006 edit)

In the UK, the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway has been approved but no funding is in place yet, a large part of the alignment to be built on a disused railway right of way. The project is not undisputed, whatever the outcome, it will be instructive to follow the future happenings there.--Klaus with K 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The LACMTA Orange Line is also partly built along old rail right of way. I believe the Pittsburg busways were as well. --Jfruh 19:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nanjungjoushian

Nanjungjoushian is certainly wrong Pinyin. --jidanni

Capacity

I believe the official capacity of the bi-articulated buses in Curitiba is 240 passengers. This goes against what is said in the Arguments against BRT section which states a maximum capacity of 100. Jamesinclair 05:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

New link

I am an executive member of a new body set up to share information and promote good practice in the provision of Bus Rapid Transit in the United Kingdom. Whilst our website is very much in its infancy, I suggest a new link www.brt-uk.org. Thanks, Mark Curran.

arguments sections

The arguments sections are problematic from a POV perspective. While I assume good faith, it must be said that they are obviously written by a proponent of bus rapid transit over other public transport options (e.g. trams and light rail). Many of the "for" arguments are presented as facts, while most of the "against" arguments have a rebuttal. The rebuttals are written as fact, rather than as the opinions of second parties that have differences of opinions. I tried to clean this up a bit, but it seems a larger task than I can take on right now. The arguments sections also seem to overlap with the controversies sections and the comparison section. For all these reasons I am removing those sections, placing them here in case there are particular passages that can be integrated with the rest of the article. -- cmh 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one writer to blame for the mess – if it were that easy. About a year ago I did a major reorganisation of this article, see above, but I felt it was still unfinished work. I endeavoured to sort arguments into pro amd contra without appended rebuttals. Since then the lines have fattened, some of the additions clearly NPOV, some of them (intentionally sounding?) stupid, some of them non-factual. And because BRT is ill-defined, one can argue make it smaller to avoid problem A and make it bigger to avoid problem B and it is cheap and add gimmick C to avoid problem D all a the same time. I think there was a reason which these two sections were headed arguments and not advantages/disadvantages. Anyone please note, we need to do better than to just retransfer these two sections back into the article. --Klaus with K 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments in favour of BRT

A BRT system may have a dedicated roadway in areas where traffic congestion is greatest or to bypass mixed traffic to reach the central business district (CBD or "downtown"), but also utilizes existing highways and roadways where traffic is lighter to reduce costs. Optimally, such routes offer advantages over regular bus service with greater service frequency, increased capacity, and higher speed. BRT systems with an exclusively used right-of-way offer the prospect of a more comfortable ride than a normal bus immersed in stop-and-go traffic.

The key argument in favor of BRT systems is that they can provide a quality of service similar to light rail or rapid transit systems, but at greatly reduced capital investment in vehicles and right-of-way. Key to this assumption is the utilization of existing streets, so that capital costs in these areas are only for the vehicles themselves and additional street furniture required for operation. Road maintenance costs are often not attributed to the bus service.

For low-income countries the capacity of an exclusive busway will excede all but the most efficient rail systems. For a very old, but very scientifically neutral report that actually counted passengers (rather than just multiplying the capacity by the flow which neglects real world delays) see http://www.transport-links.org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_673_PA1238_1990.pdf

BRT can be faster to implement and more affordable, flexible, and appropriate in scale than light rail for medium capacity requirements or areas that have a moderate degree of density. This can lead to their use as interim systems until light rail is built. Buses also have a great deal of flexibility and can often be rerouted if necessary, such as avoiding blockages for road construction.

The possibility of incremental construction and implementation means that a BRT system can be easily tailored to meet the specific transportation needs and opportunities within individual neighborhoods and transportation corridors.

Busways can offer one seat rides and reduce the number of transfers. For example, a busway system, like the Ottawa Transitway, has many routes using part of the busway to speed trips and save time. Such trips would require one or two transfers on a rail system.

In addition, bus rapid transit is often linked with intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and can involve special buses that control traffic signals, smart card systems, automatic vehicle location, dynamic message signs, and automatically guided buses.

A common misconception runs that as one bus has space for about 50 passengers only, there will be capacity limitations. In reality a segregated BRT with overtaking opportunities at stops has a higher capacity than almost all except efficient underground metros because the bus has infinitely more flexibility.

In Europe the bus driver's salary may account for 60-70% of the total operating costs. This leads to the misconception that because one tram driver can drive the same number of passengers as 4-6 bus drivers, on high capacity routes BRT may not be the most cost effective solution. However, the number of staff in total for a rail system will probably exceed an equivalent bus option.

Arguments against BRT

When a dedicated roadway is only available for part of the bus journey the BRT system is still subject to traffic congestion. As with truck traffic, heavy bus traffic with its high axle-load causes significant wear and tear of the road surface, and regular investment is required to maintain quality. This is a particular problem for guided busways, bus stops and similar situations where the wheels always pass exactly over the same spot.

BRT is also dependent on stringent traffic enforcement when cars are physically able to enter the lanes the buses use. There may be official regulations banning cars from using a busway, but these are meaningless if a car can physically enter the busway and the police are indifferent. Light rail is more insulated from the epidemic of "lazy police", as there are far fewer points where motor vehicles can interfere with the operation of the mass transit vehicle without paying an immediate physical cost.

BRT also suffers from images problems associated with buses (see Perception below). Some argue, they do not attract the ridership of rail lines, and it is not clear whether they can encourage secondary advantages such as neighborhood revitalization and business development. Conversely, some South American systems claim capacity in the order of 40,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd), levels that are consistent with some heavy rail, metro systems. Similarly, many more modest BRT systems may operate with daily ridership that equals or exceeds that of light rail (LRT) systems in other cities.

A further argument against BRT is that the rolling resistance of rubber wheel on tarmac is many times that between steel wheel and steel rail (a factor of between 5 and 10 is often quoted [2]). In low-speed land transit systems, rolling resistance (rather than air resistance) is the greatest source of energy loss due to friction (and therefore overall system energy consumption).

In overall terms, however, the energy use per person carried will be almost identical, and in both cases many times better than a private car. The final choice is often for the system that can get the most people out of their cars, using the budget available.

From lightrailnow.org

• Myth vs. Reality: Has Ottawa "BRT" Provided Light Rail-Type Service at Much Lower Cost? - a critical commentary from a transit consultant on Ottawa, Canada's BRT system.
• Ottawa's BRT "Transitway": Modern Miracle or Mega-Mirage? - critical commentary by a Canadian criminologist on the alleged miracle of the Ottawa BRT system.
• Curitiba's "Bus Rapid Transit" – How Applicable to Los Angeles and Other U.S. Cities? - an analysis that dealt with the flaws of Curitiba, Brazil's highly-praised BRT.
• A Bus by Any Other Name Is Still ... a Train? - a critical essay on BRT buses that try to imitate light rail trains.
• Bus "Transitways": A Triumph of Marketing – A Failure of Rigorous Analysis - a critical editorial analysis on the problems of BRTs in Brisbane and Sydney, Australia.
• Weyrich: Federal Anti-Rail Promotion of "BRT" Is "Dead Wrong" - a commentary by conservative commentator and mass rail transit advocate Paul M. Weyrich which criticizes the Bush Administration's support for BRT.
• "Bus Rapid Transit" or "Quality Bus"? Reality Check - controversies regarding the termnology of BRT.

From other sources

• A less-favorable view of Boston MBTA's Silver Line Phase I

Calgary BRT ROute #301

As a daily rider of Calgary's only BRT, Route #301 I edited a few facts. The route does run off-peak in a limited fashion and Calgary has now instituted a HOV lane on Centre St. below 16 Ave. N which the BRT uses. Also articulated buses are on order for this route and should arrive this winter.

Transmilenio BRT Bogota

Probably the most successful BRT system in the world is Bogota's transmilenio. I would have thought it deserved more prominence in the article in general, and obviously in the section on South America. Cripipper 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

High Level Bridge

I don't know why there is reference to the High Level Bridge on this page at all. It is hardly BRT, and in any case, is now closed to road traffic, and unlikely to ever open again. Before it closed, it was only open to buses and pedestrians on the road deck (with trains on the rail deck still running today), but I don't think it qualifies as a BRT, although it did have a very high combined frequency of services connecting Newcastle to Gateshead — Superbfc 07:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

MTA NYC Bus

MTA NYC Bus has released their studies on five routings for potential BRT implementation. It may warrant adding some information about that. Rob110178 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa BRT

Leaving aside the recent kerfuffle over light rail in Ottawa, there seems to be a little air space in Ottawa's BRT planning:

• Ottawa's system was designed so that it could be converted to light rail when the city's population hit 1 million
  • According to Ottawa's web site, it would cost $1 billion to convert the BRT system to LRT. That's the same as the total replacement cost of the Calgary LRT system (which cost only $500 million in the first place)
  • They would have to shut it down while they were doing it. It sounds like their plan is to convert it by completely tearing it up and replacing it all, which doesn't sound like good planning to me.
• it should be noted that on large portions of the busway the service provided is almost equivalent to a light rail or rapid transit system.
  • Almost equivalent in this context seems to mean half the passenger capacity of LRT or a quarter of the capacity of RRT.
    • Ottawa's BRT is maxxed out at 10,000 passengers per hour,
    • LRT hits its limit around 20,000,
    • RRT can carry 40,000 (except in Japan where they carry more).
• even though the system was designed for conversion to light rail, the downtown portion is not, due to the fact that it is one bus-only lane per direction on public roads, and even if it were converted many other bus routes use the transitway.
  • Okay, this is why you use LRT at these passenger volumes:
    • You can move up to 20,000 passengers per hour using one reserved lane of a street,
    • You can also run buses on the same lane using the unused space between the trains.
    • If you exceed 20,000 pph, you can build a subway for 1/4 the cost of a bus tunnel. (Ottawa estimated an underground busway at $2 billion, underground LRT at $500 million).

Note that Calgary intends to convert its LRT system to a subway when the city hits 1.5 million. They've already got a section of tunnel and a subway station pre-built under the Municipal Building in preparation for that. That's more what I consider planning. RockyMtnGuy 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical Comment

You know, it is not really valid to compare a specific implementation (Ottawa BRT max capacity = 10,000) with a general capability (LRT max capacity = 20,000). Three points would assist in the understanding your view of the Ottawa BRT situation:

1) To what specific LRT Implementation are you referring when you say "LRT hits its limit around 20,000" and is this implementation both comparable to the Ottawa Transit and gives the improved performance required to address the current limitation with Ottawa's BRT ?

2) Would the cost to improve Ottawa's BRT to provide sufficient capacity be more or less than the investment required to convert it to LRT. I note at this point that BRT can and does operate at larger capacities than Ottawa's 10,000/hour (See note below) ?

I'm from Ottawa, currently living in Calgary attending University here in planning. Please please please divorce yourself of the notion that Ottawa's BRT system is handling or could handle 10,000/hour. It does not and cannot. See below in the section on the CBD. --D P J 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Where specific important facts are given such as "Ottawa estimated an underground busway at $2 billion, underground LRT at $500 million", please provide the reference so the source and specific context of these statements can be validated (personally, I have never seen an comparable BRT and LRT implementations where the LRT implentation cost is less than the BRT cost).

Note: I have deliberately not provided the citations to show the inadequacy of making important factual statements without also providing supporting references or evidence. Tony 02:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was benchmarking Ottawa (metro population 1.2 million) against Calgary (metro population 1.0 million). Ottawa built its BRT system which began operation in 1983 at a total system cost of about $440 million, Calgary built its LRT system which began operation in 1981 at a cost of $548 million. Ottawa currently carries 200,000+ passengers per weekday on its BRT system, Calgary carries something over 230,000 passengers per weekday on its LRT system. So the systems are roughtly comparable in size, passenger load and cost.

1. Capacity limits: LRT capacities came from the Calgary Transit web site at http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html Note that these are the PRACTICAL limits they quote, not the THEORETICAL limits (they intend to build a subway before they reach the theoretical limits.) Note however that the 2005 operating data is out of date. Calgary's growth is out of control, much faster than expected, and the system is running over capacity for 3 car trains (closer to 220 passengers per LRV rather than 160). They're lengthening the platforms and buying new LRV's as fast as they can, but it takes time.
2. Cost: According to Ottawa's transportation planners, it would cost about $1 billion to convert the Transitway to LRT, or $2 billion to build an underground busway. This came out during the recent debates over building LRT. They can't afford either. The fundamental problem is that they originally assumed that BRT would be a lot cheaper and could carry a lot more people than it apparently can. 10,000 pph appears to be the limit in the Ottawa context. In South America it might be higher, but having ridden in a Peruvian minivan with 17 other people, I don't think people in North America are as desperate.
3. Sources: Ottawa transportation planners bandied around quite a variety of numbers during the debate over LRT. Note that the Ottawa site http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/planningzoning/2020/transpo/anx_c_en.shtml is strong on intentions and weak on hard data. It's difficult to get solid cost data from Ottawa, and I think the reason is that they don't want to admit that costs are a higher than they planned on.

The problem in Ottawa appears to be bad planning. They spent a lot of money and didn't get a lot of value for it. All the other Canadian cities in Ottawa's size range have rail transit systems, and although they aren't as cheap as Calgary's LRT, they can move more people than Ottawa's BRT system. RockyMtnGuy 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

lso, if you don't believe me, you can download the TCRP Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual from the Transportation Research Board's web site at http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2326. It includes spreadsheets so you can calculate the maximum capacity of your favorite transit system. Note that while BRT systems max out at 10,000 pph (and some have reached that), LRT systems can reach 25,000 pph with moving-block signalling (no North American system is close yet but some European systems are) and HRT systems reach 50,000 pph with moving-block signalling. (New York subway, of course) RockyMtnGuy 19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have downloaded and reviewed your reference articles and the assertions you make in the main BRT Article that LRT's maximum capacity is 20,000 while BRT is limited to 10,000. While the Calgary C-Train is superficially similar to Ottawa Transitway, based on your own references are serious gaps in your logic that LRT will provide superior future capacity to BRT improvements.

It's not just a theoretical comparison. Calgary's LRT system is already carrying more people (250,000 per day at latest count) than Ottawa's BRT, and is expanding rapidly, whereas Ottawa's BRT system is static at something less than that (around 200,000 I believe). RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The constraining factor with the Ottowa transitway appears to be CBD congestion where the transitway turns into a bus lane in the CBD. You cite TCRP Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual from the Transportation Research Board's web site at http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2326, but this also states LRT theoritical maximum can only be reached with a number of assumptions including "no ... on-street constraints" and "No allowance is contained in ... for extended dwells due to low-level (step) loading, wheelchairs, or on-board fare collection." which are likely factors in any real transit solution.

Calgary LRT loads directly from high-level platforms, does not require wheelchair ramps, and does no on-board fare collection. Problems solved. The biggest breakthrough was timing the traffic lights so that trains can get from one station to the next on green. This is not rocket science. RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Transitway turning into bus lanes in the CBD is only part of the issue. Even if there were two lanes in each direction devoted to buses in an underground tunnel, the capacity issue would remain because *every* bus has to stop at *every* stop in the CBD to drop off and especially to pick up passengers. If 10,000 passengers were actually to be carried, a bus would dwell at a stop for longer than the 20s or so headway before the next bus. Even with longer platforms and a passing lane what you'll get is a ridiculous amount of weaving and uncertainty as to where each bus is supposed to come to a stop on the platform (and you now have two lanes in each direction, not one). The express bus system and the 80 routes through the downtown are the cause of much of this grief. Switching to dedicated main line articulated buses through the CBD might solve this problem to some degree, but by then you'd definitely be better off with LRT. By the way, the much hyped 10,000 never happens: eastbound peak volume is 8,500/hour, westbound is 6,500/hour. The 10,000 is based on a 2-3 minute sample extrapolated to an hour. It is possible to move buses through Ottawa's CBD at a *rate* of 10,000/hour for 2-3 minutes, but after those 2-3 minutes the congestion problems would pile up and the subsequent minutes would be far sparser until the blockages cleared. A BRT system simply cannot move 10,000/hour through a CBD when every bus has to stop at every stop. --D P J 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The TCRP Manual also qualifies the assertion that LRT can carry 20,000pph: "Note that no light rail lines in the United States and Canada approach volumes of 10,000 passengers per peak hour direction per track, except San Francisco’s Muni Metro subway, which is shared by six routes, and Boston’s Green Line subway. Achievable capacities to and above 20,000 passengers per peak hour direction are reported in Europe; however, at these levels, the lines, often called light metro, premetro, or U-bahn, have many or all of the characteristics of heavy rail transit operated by light rail equipment." (Page 5-79)

The manual is a little out of date. Calgary's LRT ridership is over the 10,000 phd mark and rising fast. The city is growing like Topsy and the LRT ridership is rising much faster than the population. It will be exploring the 20,000 mark in a few years (probably much quicker than the planners expect, if one can judge from past experience). RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also noted that Ottawa HAS considered the $Billion LRT and scrapped it's plans to implement it. Examining this solution highlights another gap. The Ottawa LRT planned to use the Siemens model S70 in 2-car trains that will be 60 metres long with a seated capacity of 220. This is very significant because the current CTrain 3-car vehicle is already 73.2 metres long yet Calgary Transits also states "Maximum PRACTICAL single direction capacity at design capacity of 162 pass./car and 2 min. headway: 3-car train (present) 14,580 ". Your statement that Calgary LRT can increase it's current South Line capacity of 8,000pph is actually based on increasing the number of cars to 4 and even 5 car trains when the current LRT trains are already significantly longer than those that were proposed for Ottawa ! What do you think that chances are that such long trains in the CBD are not possible because they do not fit into the CBD blocks ?

But not let's started on Ottawa politics, please, my opinions on the subject are not all that printable. The Calgary South Line is not the constraint, it could reach the 20,000 mark all by itself. The problem is the CBD, where the South and Northeast lines merge, with South and Northeast trains running on the same tracks. However, the blocks are about 200 metres long, so running 5 car trains (c.122 m) would not be a problem. In preparation, the CBD platforms are already being lengthened to handle four car trains. Again, this is not rocket science. They scoped all this out prior to starting the system 25 years ago. RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The defunct LRT project would not have addressed the downtown congestion problem; arguably it would have made it worse by introducing another element to the mix. This is in fact one of the reasons it didn't go ahead. As you note they were not even going to run LRT in multiple unit trains at first - a fact that has nothing to do with CBD block length as you suggest; Ottawa's CBD could accommodate 3-car Siemens S70 trains and 4-car trains could be accommodated with signal timing so they don't block a street on the one block that is less than a 4-car train long (in fact, it's very close to being the same length - it would probably block the sidewalk, not the street). If the project had sought to replace the buses downtown and have people transfer on the edge of the CBD from buses to a large capacity LRT, it might have gone through. It was certainly not the "solution" you portray it as.--D P J 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note that Calgary Transit has also examined BRT (1.1Mb PDF) and it states "BRT service can accommodate between 5,000 to 8,000 peak hour / direction transit trips without higher capacity buses or provision of a separate right-of-way. Buses capable of accommodating up to 120 passengers can boost this capacity to 12,000 peak hour / direction trips.". And, surprise surprise, the Ottawa Transport Master Plan includes a substantial increase in both the absolute and relative numbers of articulated buses.

High capacity buses can increase capacity to 12,000 phd, but if you will note, Ottawa is already over 10,000 phd, so there's not much expandability left. Calgary LRT is also over 10,000 phd, but there's still lots of room to run buses between trains. However, if you will read further in the Calgary BRT report, Calgary estimates its operating costs per LRT passenger at 29 cents per ride versus $1.60 per passenger on its BRT system. At these levels of ridership, rail transit is really, really cheap. And due to a severe labor shortage, Calgary cannot even find enough enough drivers for all its buses, so the BRT lines will be converted to LRT as soon as the city can scrape up the cash. It's one driver per 60 passenger bus vs. one per 800 passenger train. RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa isn't over 10,000 phd, and never will be with BRT in the CBD. Maybe it could get there on the stretches approaching the CBD, but only if there is light rail through the CBD with efficient transfer facilities at either side (i.e. a dozen or more designated bus bays). In the afternoon, a customer would board the train in the CBD, get out of the CBD, get off at the facility and head to his bus's bay. The irony is that for BRT to reach its potential it needs LRT :) --D P J 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note that Calgary is also planning to put future LRT underground as its CBD on-street (in this case 7th Avenue) reaches capacity.

Calgary has always planned to build a subway, there's even a station pre-built and mothballed under 8th Avenue. That will occur when it builds three more lines into the CBD, which will put the shared CBD section WAY over capacity (30,000+ phd). Again, this will probably come much quicker than planners expect. However, it is not overwhelming expensive to build LRT underground. Edmonton's LRT was built underground from the start. It's just that Calgary prefers to spend its scarce transit money building track in the suburbs, not tunnels downtown. RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That Ottowa has a higher %PT usage than Calgary also detracts for the argument for LRT (LRT as a mode is obviously not significantly superior to getting people out of cars).

Calgary has had a very good track record at getting people out of cars in recent years. Ottawa initially started with a higher transit ridership, but actually lost riders after it built its BRT and has only recently recovered. Calgary's transit usage jumped drastically after it built its LRT system, and has exceeded expectations ever since. RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to Ottawa, it lost ridership less than everyone else and gained it back quicker. But Calgary's ridership growth now exceeds Ottawa's, and there's not much that can be done in Ottawa to change that short of conversion. --D P J 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that the maximum mixed traffic lane capacity for BRT is 10,000pph but the above provides no evidence that LRT can do any better (in fact no example of ANY LRT operating in mixed traffic that has the same capacity that has already been reached in Ottawa has been provided). The assertion that LRT is better is opinion not fact and has no place in this article Tony 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether BRT or LRT is better depends on how many passengers you need to carry. I would venture to guess that BRT is more cost effective below 2,000 phd, and above 10,000 phd it doesn't have the capacity to grow any more. This is actually a relatively new discovery since early studies estimated it much higher, but it been discovered to be invalid for modern industrial countries since people in developed countries have much less tolerance for crowding on buses than those in third world countries.

Calgary (which runs both LRT and BRT) has determined that LRT can handle more people than expected without going underground, and that LRT is much, much cheaper than BRT at high ridership volumes. It also found that people definitely prefer dozens of electric trains to hundreds of diesel buses (cough, cough). Ottawa, OTOH, discovered that BRT is much more expensive than expected ($97 million estimated versus $440 million in actual costs for the Transitway) and doesn't have nearly the passenger capacity expected. All in all, it's been a learning experience for everybody. And, as usually, Ottawa is up to its eyeballs in internal politics, which I guess you have to expect, and has found great ways to spend a lot of money to achieve very little, which is typical (but the less said about that the better, don't get me started...) RockyMtnGuy 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Ottawa's ridership rate is still about 50% higher than Calgary's overall (though the absolute numbers are about the same - but Calgary has a population of a million compared to Ottawa's 850,000 (Gatineau doesn't figure into this)). BRT got Ottawa to where it is and kept it there a hell of a lot quicker than LRT did in Calgary, but now it is at the end of its potential. The $440M is a bit of a red herring as it is as much a consequence of the high-inflation 1980s as anything else. Anyway, a move to convert would fix the capacity problem and Ottawa would still be able to retain its ridership lead. But that comes down to whether we can shed our BRT obsession and actually start picking the technology for the situation again.--D P J 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute in U.S. perception section

After reading the U.S. perception section of the article, I feel the viewpoint is very biased, implementing the fact that Americans look at bus transportation as a poor mode of transportation and that it is stereotyped with being ridden by low-income citizens. It also states how bus systems suffer from poor speed and ride quality. I find this offensive because I am not a low-income citizen and I have no problem frequently riding the bus to get from point A to point B. This section definitely needs to be cited or it will be deleted for its biased viewpoints. –Crashintome4196 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also true in Canada and Europe that people view bus systems as being inferior in quality to rail systems. Much of the problem is due to the bus diesel engines, which suffer from noise and air pollution problems as well as lower acceleration. A few systems use electric trolley buses, which are popular but about twice as expensive as diesel buses. However, the U.S. suffers from low ridership in all public transportation modes. At higher ridership levels, such as achieved in Europe, rail systems also have lower operating costs in addition to higher customer satisfaction, which makes it a much simpler choice. RockyMtnGuy 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

BRT in Lagos, Nigeria

The article says that it should be completed in May 2007. What is the status? Please update. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa - 10,000 passengers / hour / direction does not occur

There is now little doubt that Ottawa's claimed passenger volumes of 10,000 "passengers per hour per direction" (phd) does not occur - and has never occured.

Putting it another way: If there is a single location in Ottawa where you can stand, and count 10,000 passengers riding by aboard OC Transpo buses, during a single clock hour, in a single direction, then that location is a closely guarded secret. Together with other key details (time of day, season, etc.).

The maximum "observable" passenger volumes along Ottawa transitways is roughly 5,000 phd. That's impressive, but far below the claimed volumes.

OC Transpo has apparently reported observations during the busiest five minutes - say, 830 passengers - scaled up to an hourly rate. 830 passengers passing by during a 5-minute interval does occur, and at multiple locations. But that's not the same thing as "10,000 per hour."

Repeated requests to OC Transpo for clarification over the past several years have broought no result. 71.217.23.239 16:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While your individual observation may or may not be true, you need to cite the factual based evidence to support your assertion before your point can be accepted. The reason is simple, in addition to OC Transpo's continued claim of supporting 10,000 per hour per direction[3], this claim is also cited by independent studies by research organisations such as the Transportation Research Board in their report TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit, TRB, Washington, DC (2003).

And even accepting what you say could well be true, but this is not unique to the Transitway. "There is little doubt" that your claim could, and is, made of many transit systems, bus and rail. We have to at least be consistant and perhaps it is better to make changes to Wikipedia based on evidence (even disputed evidence) rather than an anonymous individual's opinion. Bigglesjames 23:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Spun out Great Britain list

Many of these systems are based around the concept of the guided bus:

• • Cambridge : Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, claimed to be the world's longest scheme, is expected to replace the disused Cambridge to St Ives railway in 2009.
  • Coventry : A project is underway in the built up area linking two major suburbs to Coventry city center and the University along an about 30 km corridor,
  • Crawley : Crawley Fastway,
  • Edinburgh : [4],
  • Glasgow, Scotland, has a scheme due to be built in 2008, Clyde Fastlink, using dedicated buses which use, in part, a simply a separated bus-only road.
  • Ipswich,
  • Leeds, Leeds' guided busways were implemented first on the A61 Scott Hall Road, then on the A64. The congested A65 will also see the scheme limited. The installation of the busways is largely accountable to the city's troubled Supertram plans. Leeds has plans to develop BRT further with the re-introduction of trolleybuses.
  • Bradford,
  • Runcorn : Although Brazil was the first country to have a Busway in a large city, the town of Runcorn, planned in the 1950s and built in the 1960s, can claim the invention of this method of transport. The Runcorn system has an elevated section that penetrates into a pedestrianised shopping area. The width of the elevated section is just 6.0 metres, around 2 m less than a guided busway or LRT. [5]
  • Kent Thameside Fastrack

The above is what was in the section previously MickMacNee (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, not all bus rapid transit systems are guided busways. Simply south (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)