  Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 200 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.150.110 |
Here is some information from Transport Canada on the METROBUS BRT routes in Quebec City. This system is not talked about much, however it is a great low cost success. METROBUS was introduced to help stop the decline in transit ridership in the 90's in Quebec City, and it worked. The METROBUS routes are actually so popular they are often over capacity. Anyway check out the stats below. I think simple routes like this that use reserved lanes on normal streets, and wider spaced stops could really bring great transit benefits to Metro Detroit at a low cost, untill LRT can be built. The Quebec Metrobus route is not a fancy BRT with transitways, huge stations, or anything like that. It just uses simple reserved lanes, high service levels, transit signals, etc. The METROBUS is basically the rapid transit route for the Quebec City region. Check out the stats. Enjoy. To see a map of the METROBUS BRT route, click on the following link http://www.rtcquebec.ca/_site/RTC/IMAGES/R_800_801_V1.gif ------- -A high-frequency Métrobus service operating mainly on reserved bus lanes, serves the major activity centres. Almost 40% of citizens and employers and 73% of post-secondary educational institutions stand within 800 m of a Métrobus route. -The two Métrobus routes have a ridership of 49 500 on an average weekday. Annually, this represents more than 15 million passengers. -The Métrobus lines perform better than standard buses. They also have the largest ridership, with about 93 boarding per client-service hour, compared to 70 for the regular and 54 for the Express services. -Despite its reliability, speed and capacity, some problems persist, for the Métrobus is regularly overloaded. Its maximum load travelling in one direction varies from 1000 to 1100 users, while theoretically it should not exceed 800 people. -On some routes, the Métrobus uses a lane accessible only to buses and taxis. Over 38 km long in each direction, it covers about half the Métrobus routes. Seventy-seven (77) regular low floor buses and two articulated buses use it. Métrobus operates seven days a week from 5:30 a.m. (6 on Sundays) to 1 a.m., with a late service Fridays and Saturdays. -Its stops, called Métrobus stations, have distinctive signs and are spaced further apart than regular bus stops. Stops on regular routes are spaced about 250 m apart, while Métrobus stations are space 430 m apart on average. There are 163 stations in total, most with bus shelters. -The average frequency of the service varies by route, from 2 to 4 minutes during rush period, 5 to 10 minutes at off-peak times and 7 to 15 minutes on evenings and weekends. -In 1992, the RTC created the Parc-O-Bus - a network of 24 park-and-ride lots providing 900 parking spots, to encourage car drivers to use public transit. Seven of these lots are located along Métrobus routes and have a 82% user rate. The establishment of a regional network of reserved bus lanes, as well as further prioritization of bus circulation, were expected to allow significant time savings (from 30% to 75% of travel time, depending on the route) as well as $800 000 in operational savings thanks to the service’s rapidity and regularity. With a transport capability of 1000 cars per hour, the Métrobus was expected to become the backbone of the transit network. All these forecasts proved well founded. The two Métrobus routes now outperform the traditional network. Moreover, the Métrobus is a victim of its own success, as it is frequently overloaded. Consequently, in its 2005-2014 strategic plan, the RTC intends to reinforce the current Métrobus system and add three new Métrobus lines.  (Message edited by miketoronto on July 18, 2006) (Message edited by miketoronto on July 18, 2006) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 37 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
Get prepared to get ripped a new one by the street'car' people Mike. I personally love this tecnology and think it makes a lot of sense, of course public opinion is that 'we don't want to ride the the lowly bus people' even though a streetcar is pretty much a bus on a track. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 639 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
BRT is great low cost transit. In a region with a weak economy and deficits galore, it's a no brainer that this is a better alternative to LRT. I'd rather see an extensive BRT network that one LRT line up Woodward any day. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 54 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
People don't like riding busses though...there are buses now and the only people who use them are low-income people lack the means to provide themselves an alternative. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 640 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
Clarification, so what your saying is people LIKE YOU don't like riding buses (safe to say non-low-income?). So what's wrong with connecting the working poor to the areas where jobs are being created (the suburbs)? So we need to create good transit for our middle/upper class selves who already have cars. gotcha Thejesus. Think about what you're saying. I would agree that transit should be created for all but if we can at least relieve some poverty in the city by giving low-income people a way to get to the Meijer in Commerce to work is that so bad? If BRT was close to as efficient as driving I'd use it in a heartbeat, plus it'd be way way cheaper than gas. Oh year and I do ride the bus occasionally and took it to Wayne State for 3 years (had no car) and I'm not low-income. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 641 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
Thejesus, in an extremely general sense you're right but the arguement for and against BRT is much more complex. The thing is, when mass transit discussions come up on this board it is implied that we need mass transit for "non-low income folks", the needs of the working poor are rarely considered. The truth is the current bus systems are failing the poor who are trying to hold jobs everyday while everyone else has cars and drives to work with little hassle every freaking day. It sucks to have to drive to work everyday but MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, the current transportation system in SE MI is failing the poor - they are suffering the most under the current single-occupancy vehicle based system. Sorry for the double post rant. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 201 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.155.169 |
And why don't middle class people use the bus now, and why does it have a stigma? Because the bus service sucks, and is slow. If you introdude a BRT style route with high level service, spaced out stops, etc. Then the bus does not become a poor only route. It actually is attractive to middle class people. The only reason the bus right now in Detroit has a stigma, is because of poor service. Go to Ottawa, or Quebec City, and the bus is used by everyone. And why? Because people know they have these speedy BRT routes, and that they only need to wait like 5min for a bus. Start improving the service with a METROBUS style route up Woodward, and not only will it help the poor, it might actually attract some car drivers. In Vancouver, 20% of the riders on the B-LINE express bus route were former car drivers. As the Quebec City Metrobus shows. They have 49 500 riders a day on the METROBUS route. Thats more then the fancy new LRT lines in many American cities. Remember the METROBUS route is just the main backbone. There are normal bus routes that run throughout the Metropolitan area that hook up wtih the METROBUS. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1623 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
I have a couple questions: 1. How does this qualify as "rapid transit"? Basically, it's a bus with stops spaced further apart, and running in dedicated lanes. It still has the high operational costs and relatively short vehicle life of conventional bus technology, since the vehicle actually is a conventional bus. Other than branding and marketing, how is this service any different than a regular bus? 2. How do you enforce the dedicated bus lanes? How does ride quality influence choice riders? 3. Eastsidedog, have you ever ridden BRT? If not, how do you know it's so great? Why do you think that poorer people wouldn't be able to ride rail, like they do in other cities? Given that rail is more efficient than buses over long distances, wouldn't it make more sense for Detroit to have a rail system to get people to jobs in the suburbs? | ||
Jtw Member Username: Jtw Post Number: 93 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 12.159.32.66 |
how do you persuade people to drive less in the cars that they've already poured a ton of money into? i'm paying $500/month for the next 28 months for my 2005 ranger, and i can't exactly convince ford to let me pay less because i won't be driving as much.... i wouldn't ride the bus because i don't need it, not because of a stigma or an income issue. i needed a bus in ann arbor for school, but now since i already have a car, that would be a lot of money wasted. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 642 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
Danindc, I have ridden LRT but not BRT I admit. Yes, I admit my experience with BRT is only from reading. But, from from this article it looks pretty good. My main point is that Detroit does not need another "People Mover" (i.e. an expensive LRT line running up Woodward Ave only to have the money run out like happened to the People Mover). I'm all for LRT - it's obviously a better system - but BRT seems like something the Metro Area might be able to afford. Last I heard much of the metro area is making painful cuts and running huge deficits. Danindc, of course everyone can ride on light rail, lots of people do in Toronto, but even in Toronto folks drive gas guzzlers from the suburbs, it's just not as easy to do as in Detroit. My point is that middle income folks are not suffering from lack of mass transit. It sucks to have to drive and not have good transit, but the real people suffering are the poor who can't hold their job because they don't have fast reliable transportation to work. Many employers in SE MI are reluctant to hire someone without a car. My brother lied and said he owned a car to get a job even when he took the city bus to the interview. My main point is that so much of the discussion revolves around which is better LRT or BRT and which will get the middle class to take transit. Well at least the middle class can get to work, right now the poor are mostly fucked. We a need a system that's fast, reliable, cheap and extensive more than another shiny tourist ride for photo ops in VisitDetroit magazine. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1624 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
^So don't ride the bus. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 202 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.155.169 |
Danindc it is rapid transit, because the buses do not get stuck in traffic, and they have stops spaced further apart. In some areas these METROBUS route have cut travel time by 30-70% over regular local buses. Believe it or not many LRT routes are actually very slow, and do not achieve speeds that much higher then a local bus route. I have ridden BRT in Ottawa, and its amazing. The Bus Rapid Transit system in Ottawa carries over 65% of downtown Ottawa workers to work, and the BRT actually is faster then LRT if you catch one of the express buses from the suburbs. LRT is great and has its part to play in transit. But in a region like Detroit, it might be better to get some BRT up and running, to atleast offer a better level of service, and then work on LRT after. Thats what Quebec City is doing. Now that the METROBUS route is doing so good, they are considering upgrading to Light Rail. But Quebec was smart by starting off with a lower cost BRT, to prime the ridership, and get quality transit in fast, and now they can work on LRT or more higher order BRT. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1627 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Quebec City is also not much larger than Ann Arbor. You're not talking about a metropolitan area of 4.5 million people. Don't get me wrong--I'm all for improved bus service (I ride both subway and bus regularly). I just don't think BRT is a substitute for rail, which is cheaper and faster over the lifetime of the system. Many people have many different definitions of BRT, as well, so it's very easy to get shafted by *ahem* cost-conscious political leadership. A huge part of the transit problem in Detroit is lack of political will. Right now, only poor, elderly, and disabled people are affected, because they are largely the only ones who ride the bus. If transit could get poorer people to work, and ALSO attract choice riders, the system would garner a lot more political support. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 370 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 209.220.229.254 |
I only see BRT working as they've done it in Pittsburgh...with dedicated right-of-way with no intersections whatsoever (And then if you're doing that, why not do LRT?). Even with dedicated LANES (not R.O.W.), buses still must stop at any light that happens to turn red, they will still be held up by heavy traffic, and their maximum speed between stops in the city would be the same as typical buses (speed limit, 25-40). | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 135 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Your YES vote next August 8, 2006 will formally approve in writing $533 Millions of taxpayer money to widen 18 miles of the I-75 freeway in Oakland County. The purpose according to the Michigan Department of Transportation is to free up traffic on Woodward Ave becuase buses get stuck in traffic just like cars. The Property tax directly replaces the fuel tax to build this expansion. Your NO vote is essential to stop this abuse and neglect of Michigan's transportation system. This regressive tax shift is discrimination and can only be stopped by those who have the courage to stand up and not just say NO, but to say HELL NO and protest the state transit revenue cuts in Lansing and not city hall. http://savethefueltax.tripod.c om/comp.html | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 203 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.155.169 |
Danindc Quebec City actually is pretty large. The City of Quebec has a population of over 500,000. The Metropolitan area has over 750,000 people. The old Quebec area is the size of Ann Arbor, with about 150,000 people. But thats just the downtown core area. And right now, good reliable bus service is what METRO Detroit needs, including some BRT. | ||
Toledolaw05 Member Username: Toledolaw05 Post Number: 25 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 72.240.58.198 |
NO BUSES I am not going to ride a bus. Give us trains! | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 643 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
In this age of deficits it'll take a miracle for the state and local municipalities to maintain all the roads in Metro Detroit in the near future. Sorry but I think LRT is a pipe dream in Detroit. Just having one coordinated bus system would be a monumental accomplishment, and that's already been killed by the DDOT unions. Some kind of reliable rapid transit is going to have to be built in the near future simply because of the need for increased efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if high gas prices eventually price many people out of driving to work. The recent large increases in bus ridership are a taste of what's to come - demand for better bus service as more and more people are priced out of the single-occupancy private vehicle system. BRT will likely be the answer in cash-strapped Michigan. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 204 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 70.48.13.171 |
Its not like BRT has to be the only thing. All I am saying is start with BRT. Prime the ridership, get some sort of good transit out there with a simple BRT route like Quebec. Then work on LRT, etc as the years go on. But in teh short term, a BRT route like Quebec's is just what Detroit needs. People need to know that they can stand at a BRT stop on Woodward, and bus is going to pass every 5min all day, etc. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 647 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
EXACTLY! This would be a God send in Detroit! | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 525 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.147.12 |
Miketoronto's baby steps suggestion is certainly valid. I think the majority of people would LOVE to have LRT right off the bat. Of course, if BRT costs less to BEGIN implementation, I would support it. Even if LRT costs less in the LONG TERM, Detroit may not be in a position to look that far into the future. Anything to move Detroit forward, albeit in baby steps, gets my support. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1629 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Hell, it would cost nearly nothing to convert Detroit's bus system to the Quebec City model. Just rip out half the bus stop signs. Dedicated lanes? On the major arterials, you have your choice of 4 in each direction--all underused. Problem solved. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 140 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Hell, next August 8, 2006 the SMART property tax will likely pass. Then the $533 Million dollar I-75 freeway expansion will be approved in writing Then more people will move to northern Oakland County and take their tax dollars with them. Then we can all drive big red Lincoln Navigators and other american made cars to save the union jobs at Delphi and restore the meaning of made in the USA. Problem Solved. Or, we can protest the large freeway. Your Choice. http://savethefueltax.tripod.c om/comp.html | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 527 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 69.209.147.12 |
Actually, highways are becoming extremely expensive and many states are having trouble affording such a money pit themselves. Here's an article that appeared in Fortune magazine: http://money.cnn.com/magazines /fortune/fortune_archive/2006/ 07/10/8380855/index.htm | ||
Hagglerock Member Username: Hagglerock Post Number: 267 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 12.214.243.66 |
Eastside, Don't jump on people for not riding buses. For some it may be not wanting to be around those not like them, but for most it's the centralized, reliable, more user friendly nature of trains/light rail/trolleys (shit I've used the bus hundreds of times, but every time something unexpected happens, which usually ruins my experience or makes me late). Myself, like the majority of Americans who are not dedicated everyday riders, can be simply overwhelmed when we take the bus; there is other traffic to worry about, what bus line to take at which time, and understanding a complex route in general. Take for instance DC Metro or the Trolley Lines in San Diego. At any station one can simply find out where each train will go and what time it will arrive. I can look at that board and be nearly 100% certain that train will be here plus or minus a few minutes. Call me old fashioned but in this world of increasing uncertainty the last people want is more uncertainties in their lives. However the system that mike posted could change my old notions. | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 732 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.42.133.85 |
I think with gas prices and the resurgence of Detroit we are on the cusp of a Southeast Michigan mass transit revolution. Let those fat-ass SUV-driving suburbanites bleed cash for 12-18 months with five dollar per gallon gas. Heh, heh. They'll ride the bus and they'll LIKE it. <=== cackles manically | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1237 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.215.254.162 |
Eastside, LRT isn't *that* much more expensive than BRT. The startup costs are higher, but a basic LRT street-level setup is nowhere near as expensive per mile as something like the People Mover. (I'm surprised Danindc didn't jump all over your comment there.  ) | ||
Tomoh Member Username: Tomoh Post Number: 247 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.148.87.134 |
I've ridden BRT in a few cities including Jakarta, a city much larger than Detroit, with people much poorer, where it is the main rapid transit system in use, where it's been so successful that it's being expanded. There, they use real stations where you pay before you board and the busses have doors like on subway cars for quick entry/exit, and the bus lines are separated from other traffic by curbs except for a few crossings. I don't prefer BRT over LRT on the Woodward Corridor especially if LRT is fiscally possible to start, considering they are similar in cost to operate. But there are things that could be changed to Woodward Ave regardless of whether BRT or LRT is chosen and which busses could take advantage of in the meantime. These are: transit only lanes, traffic lights that are switched by oncoming transit (turns green as a bus or train approaches), island stations for serving both busses and trains along the transit lanes in the middle of Woodward Ave. But having a bus come through Woodward every five minutes would be a blessing in itself. Most people wouldn't know it existed though. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 140 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.40.65.66 |
i mean if you designed the BRT system in a efficient way it would functionally be the same as a trolley sans overhead cable/rail...by which i mean dedicated space, doors that open/close the same way, stations/stops all that...that might curb the bus stigma. But ultimately it's operating costs are much more than LRT (though LRT upstart is more). However, if we can get more federal money like the $100 mil we have now and we are not really funding the upstart costs totally it will be more financially benificial for the city to chose LRT | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4589 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.218 |
Jtw, As they say in the corporate world " WHY BUY A COW WHEN YOU CAN GET MILK FOR FREE." Riding the busses is a way to cut down on pollution, and gas costs for your big sized gas guzzling SUV! Why do you have to pay $500.00 including everyweek $3.00 a gallon of gas for a 28 year lease on your American made car? You could be saving that kind of money of living in near bus communiting routes in a metro-detroit area. Believe when those gas prices keeps going UP UP UP! you're not going to able to afford something you want that is based out of your income. Be prepared to save some money and keep yourself away from the debt trap. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 445 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
Danny's rant aside, $500 a month for a Ranger seems excessive.... We are talking Ford Ranger rather than Range Rover, right? | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 205 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.148.235 |
See starting this BRT would not cost much money at all, because the buses are already there for the most part. You might need a couple new extra buses, because even with BRT, you would need a basic 30min local bus service along Woodward to cover the stops not served by BRT. There would also have to be route changes to many local bus routes in Detroit and the suburbs. The buses would not continue onto downtown, but would rather end at the Woodward Ave BRT stations, etc. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 446 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
Mike, will people be able to distinguish BRT from regular, slow DDOT transit? As you know, in Ottawa the transitway buses follow (for the most part) their own dedicated roads. In York Region, the BRT buses are from Europe and carry a different colour scheme (not to mention the interior design is less bus-like) than the regular transit buses. If Detroit created BRT using existing buses, on existing streets, would anyone notice? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1630 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
The "BRT" that miketoronto described in his post #205 doesn't sound very rapid at all. As a regular bus and subway rider, I'll say that three things rail has over rubber is 1) permanence (and hence predictability), 2) ride quality, especially over long distances and 3) vehicle performance. Disregard at your own risk. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 206 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.148.235 |
ROUTE 530 REN CENTRE MUNICIPAL CENTRE(JEFFERSON-WOODWARD) CADILLAC SQUARE GRAND RIVER GRAND CIRCUS PARK TEMPLE STREET MACK KIRBY-WAYNE STATE-CULTURAL CENTRE WARREN PALMER GRAND BLVD-NEW CENTRE HAZELWOOD STREET CHICAGO BLVD DAVISION-HIGHLAND PARK McNICHOLS 7 MILE ROAD 8 MILE ROAD 9 MILE ROAD-FERNDALE 10 MILE ROAD-DETROIT ZOO 11 MILE ROAD 12 MILE ROAD 13 MILE ROAD MAPLE ROAD BIG BEAVER-WOODWARD BIG BEAVER-ADAMS SOMMERSET COLLECTION ------- 531 ROUTE 531 will stop at all the stops listed above, except Big Beaver-Adams, and Sommerset Collection. This route will travel from downtown Detroit to Oakland University, observing the following stops north of Big Beaver. LONE PINE ROAD LONG LAKE ROAD SQUARE LAKE ROAD SOUTH BLVD DOWNTOWN PONTIAC PONTIAC SILVERDOME CHRYSLER TECH CENTRE OAKLAND UNIVERSITY AUBURN ---------------- Each Route will offer a peak service level of a bus every 10min, with combined service every 5min south of Big Beaver Road. Midday and weekend midday service will see a bus on each branch every 15min, wiht a combined service of every 7min south of Big Beaver Road. Evening and weekend evening service will see a bus on each branch, every 30min, with a combined service south of Big Beaver Road, of every 15min. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 207 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.148.235 |
Danindc right now we need to get basic service up in Detroit. A BRT along Woodward like Quebec's would be a step in getting higher order(LRT, etc) transit in Detroit. We must start somewhere. And right now the buses are not even good, so we gotta improve them first. LRT is not going to be this huge success and solve travel problems if the buses are crap. We might as well start somewhere, because Detroit is not getting a subway anytime soon. I see nothing wrong with priming the ridership with BRT first. Many cities do that. Calgary did that, before building their LRT, and now the LRT is a total success. Vancouver is doing the same thing, and is now building LRT over some of their BRT routes. Danindc sometimes the bus is faster then rail I know of some express buses in Toronto that can beat the subway ride into downtown hands down. And the same goes for other cities to. Subways are not always the fastest way. (Message edited by miketoronto on July 19, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1632 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
So why build two systems, at double the cost? Bus service will improve when the routes are coordinated with improved long-distance routes. But no one in their right mind is going to ride a bus for a 10+ mile trip (average length of bus ride in DC is about 4 miles). What does "priming" the ridership mean, anyway? The comparison between express buses (especially on dedicated freeway lanes) versus a subway with local service is disingenuous and invalid. BRT is not express bus service. The valid comparison to express bus service would be commuter rail, like GO Transit--not the subway. I just don't buy it. BRT costs as much as LRT to implement, is more expensive on a life-cycle basis, but doesn't even come close performance-wise. If you're going to build a transit system, why not do it once and do it well? For the record, one of the proposals considered for the Dulles Corridor transit project in Northern Virginia was BRT, followed by conversion to rail. Needless to say, it was shot down because the costs were higher, and projected ridership was way lower, than if the system were built as rail to begin with. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 448 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 198.103.184.76 |
A high frequency DDOT bus running down Woodward would be beneficial to current transit users but would unlikely attract new riders. DDOT tends to be perceived negatively (for various reasons, I am sure some true and others exaggerated) by Metro Detroiters. In fact, I wonder what the ratio of Metro Detroiters (including those from Windsor-Essex) who have used the peoplemover at least once is to the number of people who have taken a DDOT bus at least once? I would assume that substantially more people have used the peoplemover than a DDOT bus. If my assumption is true, then why is this? DDOT buses certainly cover a wider portion of the city than the train to nowhere. I think the DPM's advantage is that for people outside of the city, the peoplemover is readily identifiable, follows a track, and stops at listed stations. It is also frequent and inexpensive. I would guess that most people in the area (nevermind the tourists) do not know the DDOT routes. DDOT BRT would just be another route to somewhere to most people if the bus looks exactly like the rest of the DDOT buses. Spending significant money on new "fancy" buses for premier service on Woodward may increase visibility and even ridership but raises those issues that Dan points out above. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2009 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.224.68 |
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d 01984.pdf According to the GOA and, contradictory to DaninDCs claim, it appears that BRT and LRT do NOT cost the same to construct... "The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs per mile than the Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed, although neither system had a clear advantage in operating costs. Adjusting to 2000 dollars, the capital costs for the various types of Bus Rapid Transit systems in cities that we reviewed ranged from a low of $200,000 per mile for an arterial street-based system to $55 million per mile for a dedicated busway system (see table 1). Light Rail systems had capital costs that ranged from $12.4 million to $118.8 million per mile." In fact according to the table that follows that quote, the average construction cost per mile for LRT was more than double the construction cost for the 'highest' form of BRT. It also appears that despite wide fluctuations in performance across BRT and LRT systems, based on the huge number of variables, some very interesting conclusions were reached in terms of capacity that contradict the "opinions" of some posters here. "The performance characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems also varied widely, with the largest Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest Light Rail ridership." The report does acknowledge the generally higher operating costs for BRT. The key assumption there is, of course, that BRT will forever be based solely on the ICE and not some other form of propulsion. Even a simple regenerative braking battery would substantially reduce operating costs. From the same report....apparently BRT is NOT de facto slower, and in many cases actually FASTER than LRT. "We also found that speed varied but that Bus Rapid Transit projects in our review were generally faster. This was likely due to the nature of the Bus Rapid Transit systems that we visited; express bus operations or operations with longer stop spacing have higher speeds." Ignore the GAO at your own peril. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1633 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
There are so many apples to oranges compared to each other to establish the GAO's findings, it's not even funny. The report is bunk. Nowhere in it do they compare BRT to LRT for *equivalent levels of capacity and service*. Hence, there is no baseline for comparision. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 56 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
Eastsidedog: One of the main motivations behind building a light rail to Oakland County and to AA is to bring some of the wealth of those areas into Detroit...a bus system (which has been available for years) simply won't do that.. A light rail, on the other hand, would not only give people in AA and Oakland county a simple means of travel to downtown and spend their entertainment dollars, but it would also connect the working poor to the jobs in the suburbs and in AA... | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2010 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.212.224.68 |
If you think the study is bunk, find one single document that supports your theory. This is real data, not just your supposition. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 208 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.148.235 |
Right now we are not worried about getting thousands of rich METRO Detroiters onto a bus. We need to first get the people who depend on the bus to work, school, etc. And BRT is going to acheive that faster, then waiting to build a LRT. Why built an LRT when your bus system is crap? The reason most Metro Detroiters don't use DDOT is because the buses run infrequant, and most METRO Detroiters don't live on a DDOT route, and are not going downtown. A simple starter BRT route along Woodward would really do wonders. Anyway its just my view. We must take baby steps. LRT is great. However you do know its buses that still carry more people. In Calgary each day more people use the bus system each day then the LRT routes. LRT is important. But you can't dismiss buses. If the buses don't work well, the LRT won't work either. Do you think the subway in Toronto works great because its the subway and not a bus? No, because if it was not for the buses, the subway would lose 75% of its riders, since 75% of riders use a bus to get to the subway. Everything works together. And right now METRO Detroit does not even have a properly running bus system. Lets fix the buses first, before building these grand projects. Paint the Woodward Ave buses a different colour. Put special bus stop signs, paint some bus only lanes on the street, and there you go. You have a WOODWARD AVE BRT up and running. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1634 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
That's great, miketoronto. I'm sure the signs and the buses will be pretty. Where does the "rapid" part come into play? And why are we forgetting that the permanence of rail leads to increased property values and development (positive ROI), whereas buses don't? Ask Cleveland how long it takes to get a BRT line built. Apparently "faster" is 25 years and $250 million for just under 7 miles ($36 million/mi) is "cheap". Unfortunately, they could have built a light rail line for the same amount of money, with much higher capacity and better performance characteristics. Just curious to know how many posters on this board regularly ride transit, especially the people pushing BRT. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 209 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.148.235 |
I use transit everyday. Its my primary mode of transit. And one of the local buses near my house use to take 40min to get you from Fairview to the Scarborough Town Centre. They instated a limited stop bus service(nothing fancy, no special stops or anything). And now it takes 16-20min to go the same distance. Just by keeping the stops spaced out, the bus will be faster. In Quebec's case, the stops are even closer together then Detroit would have, and they still have seen up to 70% decrease in travel time on certain parts of the route. Its not like LRT up Woodward Ave is going to be any faster then a bus anyway. The whole reason I am pushing this, is because it would not cost alot of money. It would be easy to start up. And it would improve rider comfort, and may even attract some people. Its also how you market it. It may sound weird, but yes a limited stop bus route marketed as a METROBUS or whatever, can attract people. Because then you have a brand. (Message edited by miketoronto on July 19, 2006) (Message edited by miketoronto on July 19, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1635 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Ndavies, I've been scouring the Net for articles debunking the GAO report. Most of the articles related to it, however, are produced by groups predisposed to one mode or another. I link to this one only because the information was generated by a licensed transportation engineer, whom I think would provide a reasonably objective take. http://www.lightrailnow.org/fe atures/f_brt006.htm Note the purpose of the GAO report was NOT to make a direct comparison between BRT and LRT, but to see if BRT could be found to be cost-competitive. That the study was prompted by Tom DeLay (who attempted to thwart Houston's MetroRail) among others, is very telling in its motivation. The GAO report isn't necesssarily wrong. It is, however, very selective in the information it includes and excludes, which leads to some misleading conclusions. Again, the only valid comparison is one where equivalent levels of service are provided. The report has not established a valid baseline for comparison. I am curious to know, though, if any of L.A.'s MetroRapid routes have the ridership of the "underachieving" Green Line light rail (33,000 per day). The link above notes a decline in ridership on the Shirley busway (now the I-395 HOV lanes) in Northern Virginia. It is worthy to note that much of that decline was due to ridership lost to Metrorail, despite the higher fare and longer distance of the train. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 210 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.148.235 |
You know there was ridership decline along the PORTLAND Light rail line, when it opened to the eastern suburbs? Yep according to what I read, total transit ridership actually declined, because the LRT replaced an express bus system that got people into downtown in half the time the LRT takes. Bus or rail, if it is not done right, will not increase ridership. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 375 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 209.220.229.254 |
There already is essentially BRT on Woodward, the SMART Woodward Limited, which makes limited stops (every mile it seems, according to the website). Anyone know the ridership? And the fact that bus ridership is higher than rail ridership doesn't mean anything...it's that way in Chicago, DC, probably elsewhere. As was said, that's because many of the people who use rail use the bus to get to the train stop. That is not an indictment against rail. Rather, if the bus was so superior, why are they getting off said bus to take the train? | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 211 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 65.92.148.235 |
The WOODWARD limited run by SMART is not BRT. It has very limited service with just a couple trips a day, and is not a full style BRT. Anyway I did not say you can not have rail. I said a simple BRT route like Quebec would do wonders to start with. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1636 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Actually, rail ridership in DC is significantly higher than bus ridership: 700,000+ per day on the subway, and 450,000 or so on Metrobus. Miketoronto, I was not aware of that example from Portland. Do you have a source you'd like to share? I'm interested in learning what went wrong, and what has happened since. I'm in no way against buses. I am very much for giving all options equal footing in a fair, objective analysis. The pro-BRT crowd, for the most part, has a pre-ordained solution that it believes is equal and suitable in all instances. This is simply untrue and ridiculous. Speaking to Detroit, in particular, I do believe SEMCOG conducted a study a few years ago (1998?), which determined that light rail was actually the most suitable mode for the Woodward corridor. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 144 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.33.56.156 |
Miketoronto is correct. Get the buses working first and somehow have a unified mass transit system for the metro area. Until that happens, anyone willing to invest in light rail or train would be a fool. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1637 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
There are things that can be fixed with Detroit bus service that aren't mutually exclusive with implementing higher-order modes of service. I think the key word in jjw's post is "somehow". Get back to us on that, will ya? I'm sure we all know that buses tend to run better in cities with extensive rail transit. Not that rail is the cure for bad bus service. |
