BRT along the top end Perimeter (Ideal: airport, light rail, trailer)

[primaltech]

BRT has to be as close as it can to LRT on tires to be good. When it is that, it's good.

Running in toll-guaranteed-speed managed lanes that GDOT are building anyway is a good cost-saving compromise, as opposed to having to build its own new lanes. But, in-line pull-off stations would be absolutely critically essential to any such BRT. Except at the ends of the line. Or unless they're talking about express service with no intermediate stops.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Just because it's cheap does not mean it's always the right choice. BRT, if done correctly, is a great transit option. It's when BRT creep starts chipping away at what makes BRT a great option; dedicated lanes, stations, off board fare collection, signal priority, etc.

Good BRT may be cheaper than HRT or even LRT, but it's not cheap and because it's a bus that runs on roadways, it's easier to keep chipping away at its advantages for the sake of saving $$$ until what's left is just a bus route with sleeker-looking buses.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by primaltech

BRT has to be as close as it can to LRT on tires to be good. When it is that, it's good.

Running in toll-guaranteed-speed managed lanes that GDOT are building anyway is a good cost-saving compromise, as opposed to having to build its own new lanes. But, in-line pull-off stations would be absolutely critically essential to any such BRT. Except at the ends of the line. Or unless they're talking about express service with no intermediate stops.

Agreed. If they could get it to where the high speed buses can consistently average 45 mph they'd be on a par with trains, I think. That would get you from, say, Northlake to Perimeter in about 17 minutes.

Throw in three stops along the way at three minutes each and you've still got a reasonable journey.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Agreed. If they could get it to where the high speed buses can consistently average 45 mph they'd be on a par with trains, I think. That would get you from, say, Northlake to Perimeter in about 17 minutes.

Throw in three stops along the way at three minutes each and you've still got a reasonable journey.

You still lose a lot of people in the transfer. And BRT capacity < LRT capacity < HRT capacity.

Honestly I don't even see the need for the BRT stations along 400. They might as well just let buses that travel on 400 anyway take the express lanes.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

BRT has to be as close as it can to LRT on tires to be good. When it is that, it's good.

Running in toll-guaranteed-speed managed lanes that GDOT are building anyway is a good cost-saving compromise, as opposed to having to build its own new lanes. But, in-line pull-off stations would be absolutely critically essential to any such BRT. Except at the ends of the line. Or unless they're talking about express service with no intermediate stops.

MARTA and City of Atlanta officials just got back from a trip to see LA Metro's BRT lines.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Just because it's cheap does not mean it's always the right choice. BRT, if done correctly, is a great transit option. It's when BRT creep starts chipping away at what makes BRT a great option; dedicated lanes, stations, off board fare collection, signal priority, etc.

Originally Posted by jsvh

The BRT Creep is real. No way they give up a car lane on 285. Doubt they even create proper stations for it in the median of the highway.

Most likely case is regular buses running in the HOT lanes and having to get off the highway for their stops.

Originally Posted by Soccernerd

Could they possibly make an express service where it’s not getting off at every exit? I don’t know if it could live up to the name of Bus Rapid Transit otherwise.

Originally Posted by cqholt

The plan is to use the Top-End managed lanes, but without in-line stations along the managed lane system it will be not help.

Originally Posted by primaltech

Point to point express commuter bus, direct shuttle between 2 far apart nodes (with park&ride), via HOT lanes = cool

BRT line running in managed lanes with in-line stations that don't require exiting the lane system (see LA Metro Silver Line busway) = cool

"BRT" where the bus has to exit the freeway to make each stop = total failure pointless crap

That sums up my opinion

Originally Posted by cqholt

As soon as cost budgets begin to increase, the BRT amenities will be the first thing cut.

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Good BRT may be cheaper than HRT or even LRT, but it's not cheap and because it's a bus that runs on roadways, it's easier to keep chipping away at its advantages for the sake of saving $$$ until what's left is just a bus route with sleeker-looking buses.

Originally Posted by toll_booth

You still lose a lot of people in the transfer. And BRT capacity < LRT capacity < HRT capacity.

Honestly I don't even see the need for the BRT stations along 400. They might as well just let buses that travel on 400 anyway take the express lanes.

BRT Creep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_ra...ep?wprov=sfti1

[bu2]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

You still lose a lot of people in the transfer. And BRT capacity < LRT capacity < HRT capacity.

Honestly I don't even see the need for the BRT stations along 400. They might as well just let buses that travel on 400 anyway take the express lanes.

Not necessarily. https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uplo...ollar_ITDP.pdf page 20 of the report

"...After the world’s first BRT system opened in Curitiba, Brazil, in 1974, cities were slow to adopt BRT because
they believed that its capacity was limited to about 12,000 people per peak hour per direction (PPHPD)
– which was Curitiba’s capacity at the time. While this capacity is rarely needed in the US (where 12,000
people is more typical of the total daily ridership), in the developing world this capacity constraint was
a significant argument in favor of heavy-rail metro investments in some venues. This capacity estimate
increased to 16,000 with vehicular convoying (i.e., multiple vehicles traveling in close proximity) in São
Paulo, Brazil, but proved hard to maintain. When Curitiba introduced bi-articulated buses, capacity
increased to about 16,000 PPHPD without convoying.
When the TransMilenio system in Bogotá, Colombia, opened in 1998, it changed the paradigm for limited
BRT capacities by providing a lane for buses to pass each other at each station and multiple sub-stops
at each station; and by introducing express services within the BRT infrastructure. These innovations
increased the maximum achieved capacity of a BRT system to 35,000 PPHPD. Light rail, by comparison, has
a maximum theoretical capacity of about 20,000 PPHPD,11 but these levels have rarely if ever been achieved
under real-world conditions, and they require very long multicar vehicles on fully grade-separated rightsof-way (either elevated, as in Manila, the Philippines, or underground). On normal city streets, the highestcapacity LRT systems are in Europe, and they typically carry a maximum of about 9,000 PPHPD.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by JoePT

Instead of the ridiculous toll lane, this would be a good alternative. Add one dedicated lane for buses.

Stations in Cumberland and other appropriate 285 adjacent locations...

Top-End Stations west to east
Cumberland
Northside/New Northside
Roswell Rd
Medical Center
Dunwoody/Perimeter Center
N Shallowford
Doraville

[SAAN]

Why vote, JUST DO IT, I dont see the option to vote agaisnt rode projects, like hot lanes, round-a-bouts or diverging diamonds, but there is always a vote to give an option to stop transit.

[Need4Camaro]

I still personally think at this point BRT would be a waste of money on that route implemented in any sense, a train is really needed but.. good luck on fathoming that idea into reality.

GDOT's idea of BRT seems to be a bus that has access to an HOT lane at any point of its trip regardless of where it actually stops.