U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,918 posts, read 3,634,435 times
Reputation: 2141

Advertisements

I agree with BRT although it is somewhat limited in capacity compare to light rail. It also has higher much higher operating costs and vehicles don't last as long. Also when done right its considerably cheaper than rail but still pretty expensive for what you get. Also you wont get much TOD from BRT. Essentially BRT should be used in transpiration corridors where BRT makes sense and light or heavy rail where they make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,877,400 times
Reputation: 7732
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
Well we don't always get a seat here or at least not right away. And the difference between standing on a bus versus a train is that buses in traffic often have to stop unexpectedly. I'm not talking screeching tires necessarily but rapid deceleration makes people fall over. If you always have a seat then it's not a problem but like I said, we don't always.

Also buses like the one in that photo more compete with commuter rail than light rail. Cushier seats and no stops on the freeway. Those cost more than light rail in LA because they are more of a premium service. The downside is that they usually have little or no service outside of rush hour. So hopefully you don't have to leave work early or get sick.
I've been on trains, when the trains stopped unexpectedly, and sent people falling over. A few years ago I was on a San Francisco Muni Metro light rail train, when a women had to be taken off on a backboard, after the train stopped unexpectedly in the tunnel due to a computer problem.

The people standing in the picture are on a premium service. They are paying a $5 fare for that ride. Which really makes it suck. IMHO, we need a law that requires a full refund of the fair to anyone who has to stand on a bus or train for even part of their trip. I have a feeling that that would solve over-crowding problems on public transportation real quick. As long as there is financial gain to transit systems to pack people on like sardines, they will do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
I've been on trains, when the trains stopped unexpectedly, and sent people falling over. A few years ago I was on a San Francisco Muni Metro light rail train, when a women had to be taken off on a backboard, after the train stopped unexpectedly in the tunnel due to a computer problem.

The people standing in the picture are on a premium service. They are paying a $5 fare for that ride. Which really makes it suck. IMHO, we need a law that requires a full refund of the fair to anyone who has to stand on a bus or train for even part of their trip. I have a feeling that that would solve over-crowding problems on public transportation real quick. As long as there is financial gain to transit systems to pack people on like sardines, they will do it.
If America has a transit problem, it surely is overcrowding.

If BRT is an equal to LRT, then how come the Orange Line in Los Angeles is severely overcrowded with 30k riders but the Gold Line, with a similar ridership is considered to have mixed success? The fact that you are so averse to crowded (standing room is not overcrowded) transit would indicate you would prefer LRT. Your arguments really make no sense to me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
I agree with BRT although it is somewhat limited in capacity compare to light rail. It also has higher much higher operating costs and vehicles don't last as long. Also when done right its considerably cheaper than rail but still pretty expensive for what you get. Also you wont get much TOD from BRT. Essentially BRT should be used in transpiration corridors where BRT makes sense and light or heavy rail where they make sense.
Not in any of the places I'm familiar with. BRT in LA and Seattle is cheaper to operate than LRT. Sacramento doesn't have BRT, but the regular and mostly unused buses are cheaper to operate than the heavier used LRT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Not in any of the places I'm familiar with. BRT in LA and Seattle is cheaper to operate than LRT. Sacramento doesn't have BRT, but the regular and mostly unused buses are cheaper to operate than the heavier used LRT.
The problem is in LA that BRT would get to overcrowded on all but a few corridors, as it is on the Orange Line BRT. And then you wonder if it is even worth upgrading the regular bus or Rapid Bus service to become BRT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,877,400 times
Reputation: 7732
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
I agree with BRT although it is somewhat limited in capacity compare to light rail. It also has higher much higher operating costs and vehicles don't last as long. Also when done right its considerably cheaper than rail but still pretty expensive for what you get. Also you wont get much TOD from BRT. Essentially BRT should be used in transpiration corridors where BRT makes sense and light or heavy rail where they make sense.
I tend to agree. If you going to spend that much money, spend a bit more and build light rail. As I said earlier in the thread. people like trains. BRT might be just as effective at getting people were they want to go, but its not going to convince people to ride it.

Right now I live a block away from a major six lane thoroughfare with excellent local and rapid bus service on it. They are planing to convert two of the lanes to a busway. Which I would expect is going to create some major traffic problems. If they are going to create traffic problems, I wish they would at least make it light rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,877,400 times
Reputation: 7732
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
If America has a transit problem, it surely is overcrowding.

If BRT is an equal to LRT, then how come the Orange Line in Los Angeles is severely overcrowded with 30k riders but the Gold Line, with a similar ridership is considered to have mixed success? The fact that you are so averse to crowded (standing room is not overcrowded) transit would indicate you would prefer LRT. Your arguments really make no sense to me
Everything I've read about the Orange Line, leads me to believe that they made a major blunder by selecting BRT for that corridor. My understanding it that way underestimated the ridership. They will probably have to rip it out at some point and replace it with a rail line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Everything I've read about the Orange Line, leads me to believe that they made a major blunder by selecting BRT for that corridor. My understanding it that way underestimated the ridership. They will probably have to rip it out at some point and replace it with a rail line.
It had more to do with local politics but yeah, I think they underestimated the ridership of the line. Adding in a new N/S branch to Chatsworth only made the overcrowding worse, and a future N/S line on Van Nuys will (most likely) add even more riders. There are a few remedies but they are not going to solve the problem. Yes I agree eventually they will probably be upgraded to LRT, luckily the line was built in a way that can be upgraded to LRT (I think this is mostly for overpasses). As far as timeliness, I find the Orange Line to be just as good as most LRT lines I have used, perhaps a little slower.

I've read that the Expo Line in its earliest stages was planned as BRT. That line is only a few months old and it would already be overcrowded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
The problem is in LA that BRT would get to overcrowded on all but a few corridors, as it is on the Orange Line BRT. And then you wonder if it is even worth upgrading the regular bus or Rapid Bus service to become BRT.
Or just get the CalTrans exemption to run longer buses or run conveys. Orange Line was built because rail was no longer feasible due to cost and politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 03:59 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
It had more to do with local politics but yeah, I think they underestimated the ridership of the line. Adding in a new N/S branch to Chatsworth only made the overcrowding worse, and a future N/S line on Van Nuys will (most likely) add even more riders. There are a few remedies but they are not going to solve the problem. Yes I agree eventually they will probably be upgraded to LRT, luckily the line was built in a way that can be upgraded to LRT (I think this is mostly for overpasses). As far as timeliness, I find the Orange Line to be just as good as most LRT lines I have used, perhaps a little slower.
Upgrading to LRT will be hard to justify, as there's already a transit line that provides almost as much service already existing. More worthwhile to build a new light rail in some other underserved corridor.

Quote:
I've read that the Expo Line in its earliest stages was planned as BRT. That line is only a few months old and it would already be overcrowded.
The Expo line is almost completely grade separated, making trains have more of an advantage. And it connect to already existing underground rail section downtown. An orange line LRT would still require a transfer to the red line to get Downtown (or Hollywood), and the ridership is probably too low to justify a red line extension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top