Rail vs. Bus Rapid Transit: Which way should we go?
by Nick Kasoff
Unfortunately for the future of transit in St. Louis, the advocacy community is dominated by a light rail fetish. Does that sound like a bit much? A fetish is “the attribution of religious or mystical qualities to inanimate objects.” I can think of no other reason why a transit advocate would push for light rail rather than the less expensive, more effective bus rapid transit.
Because Metro runs a bus system which hasn’t been updated since the 1950s, many local transit users have a negative view of buses. But bus rapid transit, or BRT, is a horse of a different color. BRT uses specially designed buses on dramatically different routes, to provide transit that is nearly as fast as rail without the huge cost of a rail line. Several important differences distinguish BRT from traditional bus service:
- Limited stops allow BRT buses to keep moving. Because a traditional bus line is intended to provide pedestrian access over its entire route, it must stop at every intersection. BRT is a “limited access” system with strategically placed stops at much longer intervals.
- Traffic signal prioritization allows BRT buses to move move quickly. Imagine a world where every traffic light was green. Signal technology allows for automatic light changes as BRT buses approach an intersection.
- Purchase of tickets before boarding eliminates delays from fare payment. Local buses must wait as passengers pay for boarding. On BRT buses, tickets are bought at kiosks prior to boarding, much as is done with light rail today.
These factors allow BRT to move more quickly than a local bus, with speed on some systems approaching that of light rail. Bus rapid transit also offers other benefits:
- Much lower cost per route. According to a recent document from Moving Transit Forward, bus rapid transit can be implemented here for $30 million per route, while light rail costs $60 million per mile.
- Flexibility to change routes to meet shifting demand. St. Louis, like many places, is constantly changing. The places we live, work, and play today could be completely different ten years from now. With BRT, you can quickly and economically change. With rail, you’re stuck forever.
- Aesthetic quality comparable to light rail. This is not your father’s Bi-State bus. BRT vehicles are larger, and dramatically different in design, providing accommodations on par with light rail.
- Real-time information providing arrival times. No more asking when the next bus arrives. Real-time displays at bus stops display the next arrival time, using a system updated by a GPS on each bus. And in some systems (here’s an example from Chicago), you can track bus arrivals on the web, or from your cell phone.
- ADA accessible buses provide service for all. Accessibility is important, because the disabled are often transit dependent. With accessible buses, BRT provides the disabled with access to the same service as the rest of us, providing better service for the disabled and reducing the demand for “Call A Ride.”
Citizens for Better Transit believes that BRT is the common sense approach to expanding our transit system. We encourage the folks at Citizens for Modern Transit to visit the website of the National BRT Institute to learn more. And we ask voters to say no to Proposition A, which links Metro’s future to a costly, inefficient light rail expansion.
In fact, bus rapid transit is better transit in every way. That’s why Citizens for Better Transit says yes to BRT, and no to Proposition A.
Finally, for a little background, here’s a short video on BRT in Los Angeles:
February 18th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Well, I am for BRT as well as light rail. But prop A is needed to help maintain the buses, elevators leading to the stations, kiosk lights, etc. Without Prop A, funds aren’t there to maintain the buses. You have to buy the buses, build the stations, and also have the elevators and bridges to get the riders to the line also, that kind of stuff. You can’t just wave a magic wand and “poof” it’s there. It takes money to build it. Yes it would cost less that light rail. And just like light rail, the buses are quiet! Gillig builds BRTs but they aren’t articulated like North American Bus Industries or NABI! But also Gillig is a good bus builder! Also, you have to find out what shops are going to be the ones handling the repair work on them, plus you have to train your mechanics on how to work on them, and the clean up guys having to clean them. There is an extra piece that has to be tended to. That is the “turntable” in the center of the bus, just like you see on MetroLink.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Prop A will fund BRT before it funds any light rail.
We can’t have BRT unless Prop A passes. Metro’s plan includes BRT routes at a much higher priority than light rail. (BRT is in the five year plan as opposed to the 30 year plan for light rail.) However, we cannot fund any BRT or most of the busses that already run if prop A fails.
You also mention real-time arrival information for BRT. This is something Metro is working on for all bus routes, again, if they have the money to pay for it. A GPS in each bus isn’t cheap. By the way, the real-time arrival information in Chicago is for all regular buses, Chicago is just now beginning to introduce a BRT pilot program.
BRT is a really excellent form of public transit, and I sincerely hope that we vote on April 6th in favor of funding it!
Well, we agree on one thing: BRT ought to be a big part of Metro’s future. But that is where we must part ways, as I don’t believe Proposition A is how we ought to accomplish it. The poison pill of light rail promises, which are the reason the Pro-A campaign is receiving huge contributions from construction and engineering firms which couldn’t care less about bus service, are reason enough to defeat this tax.
Some time ago, I spoke at length with a high ranking Metro official about Proposition M. I told him that if Metro needed operating funds, they should ask for operating funds, rather than bundling it into a package with rail expansion. A reasonable operating levy, with appropriate accountability measures, is something I would not personally oppose. If that levy was used productively, it would go a long way to restoring Metro’s credibility as it seeks funding for future expansion.
Instead, Metro has decided to continue to seek “the whole package” right now, forcing those who don’t have absolute faith in Metro or who disagree with light rail expansion to choose between starving Metro or funding rail. My view is that since it is Metro who has imposed this choice on voters, I have no difficulty in opposing the measure. Sadly, Metro’s customers will suffer from their dumb decision, at least until operating funding can be secured. But Metro customers have been suffering from dumb decisions for a long time. Ending that is what I’m all about.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I don’t quite understand, you want to end the suffering of Metro’s customers (people who use public transit) by forcing Metro to cut more bus lines and schedules? Or are you just hoping to punish all those people who rely on public transit in our city because Metro continues to be optimistic about the future of light rail here?
If you attended any of the series of planning meetings Metro held, you would have heard an awful lot about light rail. In polls, Saint Louisans love the Metrolink. They like light rail and they want more of it. They like that it’s reliable. I think they’d be just as happy with BRT. This would have been something really important to bring up to Metro as they were constructing the plan, not after.
If you like public transit, but you’re opposed to light rail in the future of St. Louis, wouldn’t your time be better spent talking with the East West Gateway Council (who will be making the final decision on what actually gets constructed or not) than opposing a measure to fund ALL public transit?
I seek to prevent further suffering by defeating this tax increase, thereby forcing Metro to drop plans to expand light rail. As I’ve said before – and I am speaking for myself personally, not the entire organization – if Metro had put forth a modest tax increase for operating funding, without the expansion promises they’ve made here, I wouldn’t be working against it. I do believe that transit is important, and as we’ve seen, a bankrupt transit system isn’t going to serve us well.
As to speaking with East-West Gateway, I have as much influence on them as the man on the moon. And regardless, I think it’s a reckless, foolish practice to give them a pile of money, without any way of controlling how it is spent.
And of course, you’re missing the most important point of all: East-West Gateway is controlled by the same people who are going to drop a million dollars in support of Proposition A, the contractors and unions who will earn millions of dollars building new rail lines. They aren’t giving out of the kindness of their heart, and they aren’t giving so that Metro can afford to buy some new buses. And you can be sure they aren’t planning to wait 20 years for their payback either, no matter how broke it leaves Metro.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:13 am
You hit the nail on the head there! ACCOUNTABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY! Metro has already breeched our trust and in my opinion has miles to go to restore trust. I’m not opposed to GOOD public transit either, but good stewardship is MANDATORY!