Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Haha, KP is right. As a first step, I would designate bus only infrastructure on the right side of the road for the bus lines going through Center City. They would be bus lines that flow into the infrastructure which ends outside CC, improving flow while they are in the most traffic-choked portion of the city. If someone decided to driving into that lane when it starts, tickets should be 3pts on the license and $1,000+; policed heavily. I would place new bus stops like the trolley stops where necessary, but again, have the BRT line with infrastructure and grade separation so some dumb*** doesn't stop to pick-up his girlfriend while talking on the phone and have everything behind him come to a grinding halt.
Also, I would do something to make Market and JFK streamlined so there aren't 6 buses back to back waiting to stop. There are many options there.
I also agree with KP on Washington, Delaware, and would add Ben Franklin Pkwy from City Hall to the Museum (maybe even a loop), and you could also include University City in the mix since there's more breathing room.
As a second phase, I would expand to at least some of the busiest lines outside of CC, including the 45. Remove one lane of parking. Let people cry bloody murder, but they're streets owned by the city and made for moving people. Not for Big Tony and his four SUVs to be parked for a meager $35 per year.
We already have rail transit infrastructure in place serving Center City. The buses should feed it. Ideally, instead of having all those routes from the northwest coming down to Market Street, they should feed stations on the Broad Street Line, which has capacity to spare. Reconfiguring Regional Rail so it operates more like rapid transit - greater frequencies, at least off-peak and in some cases at peak, on all lines and total fare integration with surface and rapid transit - would provide more capacity and transfer points.
Center City's streets are narrow, save Broad and Market. A BRT-lite* infrastructure on them would resemble Chestnut now. I for one wouldn't want that. For all its interruptions, traffic flows more smoothly IMO on Walnut than on Chestnut.
And when you say "grade separation," guess what that means? You're either going into the air or underground. Once again, we already have that. Otherwise, you're talking about a physical barrier of some sort. And here again, I think that's a bad idea for Center City.
*BRT lite is about as much as I think we could expect on the streets of Center City. Real BRT requires off-vehicle fare collection, actual stations and level boarding (or low-floor buses, which we already have). BRT of any type would also require fewer stops than the buses currently make. What you describe here would simply be bus priority absent any of these other changes.
Removing one parking lane on some streets and pricing the permits at closer to the true cost (based on demand) are both moves I agree the city should be taking to improve the quality of bus service, BRT or no BRT.
I think where we need to implement BRT first is in some of the outlying neighborhoods. 52d Street, Frankford Avenue, Allegheny Avenue, Torresdale Avenue, Erie Avenue and Henry Avenue are all streets where we could implement it easily; Ridge and Germantown avenues would require a little more work but are doable; the Boulevard is where we should put it in first, for reasons I think you already know. All of the routes that operate on these streets serve as feeders to the rapid transit network already, and speeding up service would bolster ridership.
We already have rail transit infrastructure in place serving Center City. The buses should feed it. Ideally, instead of having all those routes from the northwest coming down to Market Street, they should feed stations on the Broad Street Line, which has capacity to spare. Reconfiguring Regional Rail so it operates more like rapid transit - greater frequencies, at least off-peak and in some cases at peak, on all lines and total fare integration with surface and rapid transit - would provide more capacity and transfer points.
Center City's streets are narrow, save Broad and Market. A BRT-lite* infrastructure on them would resemble Chestnut now. I for one wouldn't want that. For all its interruptions, traffic flows more smoothly IMO on Walnut than on Chestnut.
And when you say "grade separation," guess what that means? You're either going into the air or underground. Once again, we already have that. Otherwise, you're talking about a physical barrier of some sort. And here again, I think that's a bad idea for Center City.
*BRT lite is about as much as I think we could expect on the streets of Center City. Real BRT requires off-vehicle fare collection, actual stations and level boarding (or low-floor buses, which we already have). BRT of any type would also require fewer stops than the buses currently make. What you describe here would simply be bus priority absent any of these other changes.
Removing one parking lane on some streets and pricing the permits at closer to the true cost (based on demand) are both moves I agree the city should be taking to improve the quality of bus service, BRT or no BRT.
I think where we need to implement BRT first is in some of the outlying neighborhoods. 52d Street, Frankford Avenue, Allegheny Avenue, Torresdale Avenue, Erie Avenue and Henry Avenue are all streets where we could implement it easily; Ridge and Germantown avenues would require a little more work but are doable; the Boulevard is where we should put it in first, for reasons I think you already know. All of the routes that operate on these streets serve as feeders to the rapid transit network already, and speeding up service would bolster ridership.
I'm not against rerouting several lines outside Center City to connect to rapid transit at all. But guess what? There are only two SEPTA lines in Center City for getting around. And buses even on Walnut suck (I know because I take them regularly. They crawl in traffic. It should not take 10 mins to go 5 blocks! And walking from Market to South Street is not a short walk, especially when you're dealing with groceries. Same for when you're on 22nd and Locust and need to get to the BSL. The buses are slow and stuck much of the time.
Grade separation does not mean we need to push the buses into the sky or underground. They can have their own lane with separate infrastructure. And while the streets are small, they need better transit than what we have. Again, I proposed Market, JFK, Columbus and Ben Franklin Parkway (which has a stupid 4 - 5 lanes on each side) as key BRT lines. BRT lite MAY work, but even the lanes on Market get ruined by people pulling over on the side of the road, forcing buses to go around.
These are all easy things to do if someone steps up to own the streets. The outer neighborhoods may need BRT first, and that's fine. But there should be a master plan for modifying other places in the core too.
Grade separation does not mean we need to push the buses into the sky or underground. They can have their own lane with separate infrastructure.
Pardon me for getting technical on you, but "their own separate lane with separate infrastructure" is not "grade separation."
"Grade separation" means exactly what it describes: the separation of transportation facilities by removing them from the same plane with each other. That means putting the facility above or below the ground. Nothing else qualifies.
You can have "physical separation" of facilities at grade. A fence around a railroad track is physical separation but not grade separation. Understand now? What you are describing is physical separation, and as I said above, we can have that. I just don't think it's practical.
Quote:
And while the streets are small, they need better transit than what we have. Again, I proposed Market, JFK, Columbus and Ben Franklin Parkway (which has a stupid 4 - 5 lanes on each side) as key BRT lines. BRT lite MAY work, but even the lanes on Market get ruined by people pulling over on the side of the road, forcing buses to go around.
These are all easy things to do if someone steps up to own the streets. The outer neighborhoods may need BRT first, and that's fine. But there should be a master plan for modifying other places in the core too.
Just so you know: both Ottawa and Curitiba are now pursuing projects that are replacing their BRT systems with rail (well, in Curitiba's case, adding rail to the mix).
And Ottawa is pursuing grade separation - that is, a subway - in its downtown because the volume of vehicles, even rail ones, overwhelm the downtown streets on which the Transitway is routed.
Yes, I know "we can't afford it." And there are small things we should be doing to improve the flow of buses through Center City. I'm just not sure that actual BRT is one of those things, except maybe on the wide streets.
Pardon me for getting technical on you, but "their own separate lane with separate infrastructure" is not "grade separation."
"Grade separation" means exactly what it describes: the separation of transportation facilities by removing them from the same plane with each other. That means putting the facility above or below the ground. Nothing else qualifies.
You can have "physical separation" of facilities at grade. A fence around a railroad track is physical separation but not grade separation. Understand now? What you are describing is physical separation, and as I said above, we can have that. I just don't think it's practical.
Just so you know: both Ottawa and Curitiba are now pursuing projects that are replacing their BRT systems with rail (well, in Curitiba's case, adding rail to the mix).
And Ottawa is pursuing grade separation - that is, a subway - in its downtown because the volume of vehicles, even rail ones, overwhelm the downtown streets on which the Transitway is routed.
Yes, I know "we can't afford it." And there are small things we should be doing to improve the flow of buses through Center City. I'm just not sure that actual BRT is one of those things, except maybe on the wide streets.
You do realize that Bus Rapid Transit is a huge mode of transit in London. Yes, London. Philadelphia does not really function like Ottawa or London. But how do you think if bus Rapid Transit could be achieved here, that we would need to rip it out to replace with rail? And don't you think that if that were the case, then it would be a beaming success? Getting that many people to ride and having Transit valued that much would only be a success in my eyes.
So what do you propose in order to improve the flow of buses and Transit through Center City?
You do realize that Bus Rapid Transit is a huge mode of transit in London. Yes, London. Philadelphia does not really function like Ottawa or London. But how do you think if bus Rapid Transit could be achieved here, that we would need to rip it out to replace with rail? And don't you think that if that were the case, then it would be a beaming success? Getting that many people to ride and having Transit valued that much would only be a success in my eyes.
So what do you propose in order to improve the flow of buses and Transit through Center City?
London doesn't have BRT.
What it does have is bus priority lanes and better bus information.
That alone would help things a lot here. Signal priority on Chestnut and enforcement of the bus lane, for instance, would be a start.
True BRT requires off-board fare collection, actual stations and physical separation from other traffic - none of which is really practical in Center City except perhaps on Market Street. IIRC, in downtown Ottawa, the BRT line took over two downtown streets completely. The Chestnut Street Transitway may have been an abortion, but it also showed that doing that here might be counterproductive.
The point is that surface BRT also has a capacity limit, and once you hit it, you need to go with real grade separation - and usually, higher capacity, which means rail vehicles. That's why Ottawa and Curitiba are doing what they're doing now. It's the equivalent of the streetcar jams on Tremont Street that led Boston to build the first subway in North America in 1895-97.
Ridership on the Market-Frankford Line is already through the roof and the line is bursting at the seams. If we need BRT - or priority lanes - in Center City, it's because it will be easier to add the capacity needed to relieve pressure on the line that way than by the only other way we have at our disposal right now, which is to lengthen the station platforms to allow eight-car trains. (The original game plan in 1902 was to have the trolley subway offer "local" service and the rapid transit subway run "express." A shortage of money at the PRT (sound familiar?) and engineering issues (Market east of City Hall is narrower than the street west of it) combined to deep-six this idea east of City Hall.)
What it does have is bus priority lanes and better bus information.
That alone would help things a lot here. Signal priority on Chestnut and enforcement of the bus lane, for instance, would be a start.
True BRT requires off-board fare collection, actual stations and physical separation from other traffic - none of which is really practical in Center City except perhaps on Market Street. IIRC, in downtown Ottawa, the BRT line took over two downtown streets completely. The Chestnut Street Transitway may have been an abortion, but it also showed that doing that here might be counterproductive.
The point is that surface BRT also has a capacity limit, and once you hit it, you need to go with real grade separation - and usually, higher capacity, which means rail vehicles. That's why Ottawa and Curitiba are doing what they're doing now. It's the equivalent of the streetcar jams on Tremont Street that led Boston to build the first subway in North America in 1895-97.
No offense, but I'm more interested in a real conversation about the type of setup and less about technicalities. Yes, I understand what true-to-form out of the planner manual BRT is. And yes, London is not BRT in every sense of the term. Regardless, it's been Bus Rapid Transit in reality for a long time, having taken the system a lot. It moves people FAST and is very effective. It's about making buses act as rapid transit, not characteristics that match the planning book exactly.
For instance, we don't need to have fares collected off-board to make our buses "rapid"; although it helps (some systems have payment on-board but don't wait for everyone to pay before leaving the station). Nor do we have to have buses running in tunnels or 2-story high platforms to have them be more literally "grade separated". What we DO need, is to consider how we keep the bus lanes clear and dedicated. How we re-architect our placement of bus stations, how we deal with lights, how we integrate with other forms of transit. That's what I'm trying to discuss. Real rapid transit, leaving the manual home and making it effective for us.
Ridership on the Market-Frankford Line is already through the roof and the line is bursting at the seams. If we need BRT - or priority lanes - in Center City, it's because it will be easier to add the capacity needed to relieve pressure on the line that way than by the only other way we have at our disposal right now, which is to lengthen the station platforms to allow eight-car trains. (The original game plan in 1902 was to have the trolley subway offer "local" service and the rapid transit subway run "express." A shortage of money at the PRT (sound familiar?) and engineering issues (Market east of City Hall is narrower than the street west of it) combined to deep-six this idea east of City Hall.)
The MSL isn't overcrowded because people are walking from Pine up to Market to go from 5th and Pine to 18th and South. Center City requires much more than the holy cross that the BSL and MSL make. And it's not just about CC, but also about people commuting to/from and through Center City. I don't want to use the MSL if I'm going from Queen Village to Graduate Hospital for instance. Try going from Pennsport to the Art Museum. There's a reason Uber is so popular and it's largely because the city is not served by rapid transit all that well unless you live and work near one of the lines.
I don't see the two in competition to each other. We need better transit where there isn't rail so that rail can also be more effective. Buses are the problem IMO. They don't function nearly as effectively as they should.
The MSL isn't overcrowded because people are walking from Pine up to Market to go from 5th and Pine to 18th and South. Center City requires much more than the holy cross that the BSL and MSL make. And it's not just about CC, but also about people commuting to/from and through Center City. I don't want to use the MSL if I'm going from Queen Village to Graduate Hospital for instance. Try going from Pennsport to the Art Museum. There's a reason Uber is so popular and it's largely because the city is not served by rapid transit all that well unless you live and work near one of the lines.
I don't see the two in competition to each other. We need better transit where there isn't rail so that rail can also be more effective. Buses are the problem IMO. They don't function nearly as effectively as they should.
You might want to read this, then, for some possibilities. Again, no BRT, but dramatic improvements in speed and reliability. One of the changes did involve closing a street to cars at peak hours. My statements about Chestnut Street above notwithstanding, that's something we could try here too:
You might want to read this, then, for some possibilities. Again, no BRT, but dramatic improvements in speed and reliability. One of the changes did involve closing a street to cars at peak hours. My statements about Chestnut Street above notwithstanding, that's something we could try here too:
Yes, exactly. Speed and reliability are two of the three most important things IMO (the third being safety/experience). I'm not sure peak hours would work because Center City is clogged a good portion of the day in some key spots. I stand by the fact that transit should be reliable and speedy even on weekends. Especially in a city like Philly where people don't empty out after working hours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
