First of all, there's nothing unreal about CNG, in fact the Orange Line buses in LA are CNG articulated buses. NYC has a fleet of hybrid buses, and I've even seen a fuel cell bus in service, though I think it was a unique example. The problems with Orange Line style BRT amount to the inability to provide crossing gates, the slowness of the buses, and the generally cramped interior of buses and lack of MU ability. Basically, what this amounts to is that service is considerably slower than a light rail line would have been (by at least 50%), and buses get more crowded. Another important issue is the narrowness of the busway, which has two lanes and no shoulder, with oncoming buses passing at 55 mph. It would have been safer with rails.

A side issue is that this is primarily a feeder service for the heavy rail Red Line, but the bus service has to run at half the headway, leading to bunching and a service of two buses every 10 minutes instead of one every five. Oh, and some sections of the pavement had to be replaced after something like 8 months, though I think they replaced asphalt with concrete in curves, so I think it should last a while longer this time around.

I'm not partial to diesel, either. I don't know about fuel cells but electric buses work well all over the world.

These ones don't even need overhead wires:
http://www.tecnobus.it/home/en/prodotti.html

Consider the abject failure of the Shirley Busway (in DC area) versus the later Blue Line of DC Metro. Both servicing the same corridor.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00004.htm

Alan

"Plus, people just don't like stinky diesel buses. I mentioned this to one BRT advocate, and they started talking about CNG or even fuel cells. Oh, please."

Then the Electric BRT in Quito, Ecuador would be more to your liking. It is similar to Bogota in many ways, including very high ridership throughout the day, but quieter and cleaner, with a surprisingly smooth ride and great acceleration. Go there ... Quito is a nice city.

Obviously there are differences between the customer experience on a bus vs. a train car. Rail cars are smoother and less bouncy, and if electric do not generate local exhaust.

However, is it worth it, if you can haul four times as many people on a subway-like bus system as on a subway system that has the same cost?

The point Ericy makes about the system needing to be designed to succeed is key. It is easier to fail than to succeed.

The most wonderful thing would be of course if AC Transit restored the most important part of the Key System network: the Transbay route. I imagine that it would be cheaper than building a new BART tunnel, and given that the current one is already at capacity, something will have to be done about it sooner or later. A streetcar system, especially with a transbay route, could be very beneficial for Oakland, especially if the city agrees to greatly increase density along the lines and reduce car-dependent uses, for example by allowing supermarkets and other stores with minimal parking. It could provide a nice relief and make Oakland the most affordable and pleasant place to live in the Bay Area.

The OIO task force is enamored with BRT. I'm not sure they will have much luck carving out 4 lanes for a Bogota-style BRT system down Telegraph or any other major street in Oakland. Oakland is not going to become Oil Independent by buying more oil powered buses. Ironic.

PS: my most unpleasant shock (ever) in riding public transit was going to the southern terminus of the Miami Metrorail and transferring to their BRT (exclusive busway built on old RR ROW).

I noted that *ALL* of the apparently middle class riders had exited at earlier stops or walked towards the Park & Ride lots. I exited a quite nice, fast smooth train and waited for the bus.

I ended up crammed nose to underarm swaying in a bus with overworked air conditioning.

EVERY BRT supporter should make that transition in Miami !

Buses move in multiple directions at once, which makes it more difficult to brace one self, engine vibrations, wheelchair access is MUCH more problematic, ergonomics of entering and exiting are typically much worse.

And, quite frankly, there is a cultural cache. I saw New Orleans only billionaire on an 80 year old un-air conditioned streetcar several times as he commuted to work. You would have NEVER seen Pat Taylor on a public bus !

Best Hopes for Buses as Feeders to Urban Rail,

Alan

Add to that list one of the most important problems with anything "bus": transience. Any Transit Oriented Development will represent a huge fixed investment. The French word for real estate, "immeuble", exists for a reason. Busses of any kind are the exact opposite - here this morning, potentially rerouted by this afternoon. That's simply not a sound basis for real-estate investment. The rail modes, OTOH, require a sense of commitment. That's both their curse and their blessing.

Calgary has an excellent light rail system known as the CTrain which passes through the downtown business district and extends out to the suburbs. It is quiet, fast and much more comfortable than buses for long commutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctrain

Under a program called "Ride the Wind", energy for the CTrain is produced by wind power:

http://www.calgarytransit.com/environment/ride_d_wind.html

There are 12 windmills located in Southern Alberta that generate the wind-power. The equivalent amount of power used by the CTrain is sent to the main power grid.
...
It is expected that the "Ride the Wind" program will increase power costs by less than one-half of one cent per passenger.

Why can't crossing gates be employed just like they are for grade crossings with light rail?

They can but its more cost in infrastructure - if you have been to the valley at night the lighting/signing scheme is a major change from the old railroad line. It can be confusing if you are not aware that the buses are running, and thy have to stop at times for the cross traffic.

Well that's the crux of it, innit'?
If you can repurpose preexisting roadways (as with HOV lanes) - BRT is much more expensive over time, and very cheap to put in place. When you factor in as much infrastructure as Bogota did into the system (which looks quite good), it would be much easier to just use rail. But there's no guaranteeing that the political will to build an entirely new rail network existed - while slowly expanding bus coverage over preexisting infrastructure was much easier to do incrementally.

"As for buses, cabs, trams and trolley buses; history."
That seems a little hyperbolic. No, it seems a lot hyperbolic. That thing in the pix looks like a little cousin to the Tokyo Monorail, or a less little cousin to the monorail pods at Newark Airport. It should change tracks more easily than a monorail, but then monorail was always a dumb idea.

It runs on a track ("guideway" being the fancy name used to market it as "advanced") and it stops at stations, that's perfectly clear from the pix. No liability insurer in the world would insure a fully automated vehicle that stopped just anywhere like a cab, not yet anyway. So it's just another podbahn on a track, a one-car train, that's all, zzzzz. And from the look of it, 3cm of snow or 1mm of ice will bring it to a complete halt. As if the UK wasn't already a laughingstock for perpetually having the wrong kind of snow or leaves on the line.

So as a one-car train, it's only "door to door" if you use a very specialized definition of "door". On that definition, Paris Metro Line 14 is also door to door - as you can see in the picture, there are doors on the station platforms.

So when will this podbahn be coming to your door or my door, which is what most of us mean by "door to door", and what you need to mean if you expect it to replace cabs? Maybe by 2200? Maybe never?

Another gadgetbahn. Operate it, and a half dozen more, for a decade in all sorts of climates. And then release the operating costs and other operating issues, life expectancy of the rolling stock and infrastructure and I will consider it then.

Hint: I do not expect a half dozen more to be built.

Alan

BTW, PRT pods always seemed to be a cheaper alternative than hotel rooms by the hour for "working girls" and their Johns. They might leave a mess behind.

All trains have door to door service. Buses don't even need doors to stop.

"Much cheaper" remains to be seen. How is this not light rail with 6 person cars?

Private? Plenty of trains have cabins this size.

The "innovation" of PRT is always contingent on ridiculously inexpensive tracks carpetting the world, and rights of way just as pervasive as building the entire road system over. It can (and does) work well in privately owned property like airports, but that's about it - so does any other transport mechanism if it's well-designed.

I'm an urban planner by training and have lived in or visited major urban areas in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Things that make BRT work outside the US just dont translate as well over here.

The two most significant US-specific criticism (stupid behavioral mindset aside of the avg citizen aside) is:
* Decentralized, spread out urban development pattern that precludes concentrated corridors of use and lack of common destination points.
* Higher (relative) labor costs.

For most metro areas, the same things that limit transit use still apply. Too many people live too far removed from each other and their regular destinations. BRT could probably penetrate more suburban reaches but not everywhere. Heck probably not even 10%. Look at the Bogata and Curitaba BRT service map and you'll see the well used system serves a high density corridor which is only a portion of the larger metro area. THis is significant hurdle. Until we stop perpetuating our current land use patterns, BRT wont help us out much in areas developed after WWII. Some relatively dense metro areas may still make it work though.

Labor costs are the forgotten component. One train with a single driver/operator can carry hundreds, perhaps a thousand or more with real large trains. To move the same number of people, you need 4-6 buses with 4-6 drivers. You also need a corresponding number of mechanics, service crew and admin to support the operation. In Brazil, Columbia and other developing countries, labor is a relatively small expense. In an urban metro in the US or Europe it is not. Places in the US where BRT would be heavily used, the extra upfront investment on rail would be offset by lower labor costs later by simply adding more cars when needed.

I am not against these as a concept. We just have to be realistic on the technology's potential to work given real significant land use and labor hurdles.

BRT in the USA is a scam used by the right wing to abort cost-effective Urban Rail plans and preserve our Oil Based Transportation system. BRT has a number of dismal failures in the USA#. No Urban Rail system has a comparable failure## This deceptive### video is very much part of that effort.

I have detailed a large number of "on-the-shelf" Urban Rail projects that could start physical construction in 12 to 36 months. Estimated cost $135 to $175 billion.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm

# Los Angeles spent a half billion dollars on the Harbor BRT and could not get riderhip much above 10,000 (often below). Meanwhile the parallel Blue Line Light Rail Line (2 to 3 miles to East of Harbor BRT) surged to over 100,000 and is the busiest Light RailLine in the USA. I remember that the Shirley Busway has been discontinued/abandoned.

## The population of Buffalo dropped by half by the time they finished the first third of their planned first line. This rump line has had disappointing ridership, but enough to avoid abandinment. San Jose is poorly operated and badly designed downtown section (politicians overrode transit planners) with (I heard) 4 mph average speeds in that area. Still better than several BRT projects (I dare say the median USA BRT).

### I believe the video is deceptive. It claims "easy wheel chair access" with a shot of one guy. There does not appear to be any means for a wheelchair patron to get to the mid-road stations. Stairs (certainly not 1/12 slope ramps with rest areas every 2.5' up as per ADA). And there is no way that a bus driver can pull up to within an inch (ADA maximum gap is less than that) EVERY time for easy entry & exit from bus. So I think the "easy wheelchair access" is a lie.

I also noted poor soul trying to walk narrow median with blocks ahead at 1:17. No sidewalks apparently.

Best Hopes for No More BRT,

Alan

The truth is there is no perfect system, but BRT is the least expensive in a pinch

FALSE !

The lifecycle cost for Urban Rail is cheaper, this means that it is sustainable. BRT is only cheaper in upfront costs, the operating, maintenance and replacement costs will hurt it post-Peak Oil.

Trams have been a uniform success in France. Why don't you do a video on the TWENTY Plus French cities with new trams and their success.

France has announced plans to build 1,500 km (900 miles) of new tram lines in a decade. France has about 1/6th the population of the USA (and the French have 36 hour workweeks and take all of August off). Perhaps the USA could build 5,400 miles of Light Rail in a decade ?

Best Hopes for Urban Rail,

Alan

There is an ongoing competition for:
(1) limited financial capital;
(2) public attention and goodwill;
amongst all sorts of proposals.

From what Alan has written I gather that he believes BRT siphons off (1) and also sets bad precedents for public transportation (thus affecting (2)).

Personally I much prefer rail for my own travel, but also because rail is a long term positive. Long term meaning that the benefits continue to be enjoyed not just for decades but even for a century.

My suspicions for the preference of BRT among part of the political party infrastructures has more to do with supporting the bus makers (and their suppliers, including the fuel source, tires, and perhaps even the unions who will represent the drivers, etc.) rather than overarching conspiracy against rail by the "right wing".

I was MOST impressed by the Ciclovia ! (And you are right, it should encourage community) and the bike paths are both impressive and useful.

Good to here about the subway. BRT may have a role as a stop gap measure.

IMHO, an ideal system would be a subway combined with largely private ROW streetcars on the surface and Light Rail feeders from lower density areas and electric trolley buses from even lower density areas.

Best Hopes for Columbia !

Alan