May-June 2016: The Bus Rennaissance - Intercity Travel, Bus Rapid Transit, Technology Advances, Rural Services (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TR N EW S 303 M AY–JUN E 2016 23 Zimmerman is Urban Transportation Planning Consultant, The World Bank, Arlington, Virginia. Levinson is Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consul- tant, Wallingford, Con- necticut, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and a past member of the Trans- portation Research Board Executive Committee. Years ago, a reporter asked Yogi Berra, a former New York Yankees baseball player, what he thought of a then-trendy and popular Manhattan restaurant. His answer: “Nobody goes there any- more. It’s too crowded.” (1) Yogi Berra’s observation drew many laughs andbecame famous as yet another of the colorfulbaseball player’s malapropisms. His statement sounds funny, but many people say essentially the same thing about bus rapid transit (BRT). They believe BRT has little appeal for people with trans- portation choices and that the capacity limits make BRT too crowded with passengers—who, ironically, had chosen to ride it. Those who describe the capacity of BRT as signif- icantly lower than other rapid transit options, such as light rail, may believe BRT is little more than a local bus route employing 40-foot buses operating in mixed traffic and stopping on every block. BRT is not that; nor is it a modest-length busway or a limited- stop, mixed-traffic bus route with essentially the same buses as operate elsewhere but painted a different color or given an evocative name. Features and Myths Full-featured BRT uses specially configured buses operating for the most part on dedicated transitways. They have stations—not stops—and also may use off-board fare collection, no-step boarding and alight- ing, and passing lanes at stations to allow for express or skip-stop services. These features are intended to increase schedule speed and frequency and to avoid the delays that often slow conventional buses, such as waiting in traffic or while passengers pay on board. BRT’s limited capacity is one of several myths often repeated by politicians, citizens, journalists, and even transit professionals and advocates. The persistence of POINT OF VIEW Bus Rapid Transit Works Countering the Myths S A M U E L L . Z I M M E R M A N A N D H E R B E R T S . L E V I N S O N The Bus Renaissance A Chinese BRT line features 18-m articulated buses, dedicated lanes, and level boarding stations. P H O TO : S C A N IA G R O U P TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 23

TR N EW S 30 3 M AY –J UN E 20 16 24 these claims can be frustrating some 40 years after the first BRT lines went into successful operation in Curitiba, Brazil. Worldwide, more than 150 BRT-type applications are in service, including a growing number in the United States. Most of these systems are working well, with significant gains in performance, passen- ger satisfaction, and ridership compared with the previous local bus services in the same corridors. Moreover, evidence indicates that BRT has positive, sustainable effects on urban development. The persistent myths about BRT err in citing the following flaws: u Limited passenger capacity, u Lack of appeal to travelers who have other transportation choices, u High operating and maintenance costs, u Significant air and noise pollution, and u Weakness as an urban development tool. The intent of debunking these myths is not to argue that BRT is preferable in all urban settings or to dismiss other transit approaches. Decisions about the specific transit solutions best suited to an urban area or corridor should be objective and transparent. In most urban corridors, no specific transit mode clearly dominates across the spectrum of criteria. Nonetheless, more than four decades after the inau- guration of BRT in Brazil, the evidence is sufficient to suggest that BRT deserves serious consideration as an attractive, high-capacity, and cost-effective rapid transit investment. Limited Capacity Myth Full-featured BRT applications in the United States include the Silver Line in Boston, Massachusetts; the Orange Line in Los Angeles, California; the Cleve- land, Ohio, Health Line; EmX in Eugene, Oregon; SbX in San Bernardino, California; and CTfastrak in Hartford, Connecticut (see article on page 22). All operate 60-foot articulated buses. Some inter- national BRT applications employ biarticulated buses as long as 80 feet, such as those in Curitiba; Mexico City, Mexico; and Bogota, Columbia. In other cases, such as in Istanbul, Turkey, 64-foot buses operate in two-vehicle platoons running every 60 to 90 sec- onds. With transitways in the medians of roadways, off-board fare collection, and no-step boarding, these platoon systems can achieve capacities in excess of 15,000 passengers per hour. A capacity of more than 15,000 per hour is higher than that of any U.S. heavy rail system outside of New York City. Some BRT corridors have even higher ridership levels. For instance, the Metropolitano BRT in Lima, Peru, moves more than 30,000 passengers per hour by using passing lanes and articulated 60- foot buses. The Las Caracas Corridor of the Trans- milenio in Bogota, which has passing lanes and some biarticulated vehicles, serves more than 40,000 pas- sengers per hour at peak times. Admittedly, capacity constraints are an issue on these BRT systems—Bogota riders consistently give their BRT system low grades because of crowding and crowding-related crime. Nevertheless, the appli- Emerald Express BRT on Franklin Boulevard in Eugene, Oregon. A biarticulated bus in Curitiba, Brazil, the birthplace of BRT. P H O TO : O R EG O N D O T P H O TO : L U A N L EN O N TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 24

TR N EW S 303 M AY–JUN E 2016 25 cation of BRT in dense urban corridors like those of Bogota and Lima illustrate that capacity limitations should not be an issue in the less dense urban cor- ridors of the United States. According to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, the busiest U.S. light rail corridors serve approximately 10,000 passengers per hour (2, Exhibit 2-25). Unattractiveness Myth Some argue that BRT will not lure people out of their cars the way that rail-based alternatives would, because “people with a choice will never ride a bus.” A reluctance to ride the bus is understandable when a system is poorly planned, operated, and maintained; however, in developed and developing cities with BRT, the patronage includes significant percentages of people who once traveled by private vehicle. Some BRT systems, such as in Boston, Cleveland, and Mexico City, have attracted signifi- cant numbers of travelers away from the urban rail systems. In surveys conducted on all transit modes in Los Angeles and Rouen, France, passengers evaluated the available options according to attributes associ- ated with mode choice, such as comfort, conve- nience, travel time, and reliability (2). In both cities, riders were familiar with all of the transit options, in contrast to surveys undertaken when BRT is brand new or a hypothetical option. The composite ratings for the BRT service in both cities were equal to or exceeded ratings for the rail equivalents. In the case of Los Angeles, the BRT ratings were far higher than those for the local bus service. These survey results do not imply that travelers always prefer BRT to light rail or rapid rail but are examples of empirical evidence refuting the notion that people with a choice would not choose BRT. High Costs Myth A popular view holds that because each BRT bus requires an operator, the operating cost is more than that for a multicar rail-based system that can trans- port more passengers per operator. One of the biggest pluses of BRT, however, is its speed advantage, which derives from operating on dedicated lanes and with longer stop spacing, off-board fare collection, and no-step boarding and alighting. The gains in travel speed increase the passenger-carrying capacity per given amount of labor. For example, the BRT-like M-15 Select Bus oper- ating on Manhattan’s East Side, from 126th Street in Harlem to South Ferry, has an end-to-end travel time approximately 25 percent faster than the parallel M- 15 local bus route—73 minutes versus 101 minutes in the morning peak. The lower travel time derives from a combination of off-board fare collection, mul- tidoor boarding, fewer stops, and a portion of run- ning time on bus-only lanes. The 25 percent time savings is consistent with that observed for the BRT systems in Los Angeles and Boston. A Swift BRT bus passes a local bus on Everett Transit Route 7 in Snohomish County, Washington. The speediness of BRT services increases passenger-carrying capacity in relation to the amount of labor required. Users rated Los Angeles BRT service far higher than local bus service. PH O TO : SO U N D ER B R U C E, F LI C K R PH O TO : L. A . U R B A N SO U L, F LI C K R TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 25

TR N EW S 30 3 M AY –J UN E 20 16 26 In addition, most BRT applications use buses that are significantly larger than the standard 40-foot bus; as noted, some BRT systems abroad use buses as long as 80 feet. These longer buses can carry approximately 200 passengers at normal U.S. standee densities. BRT has maintenance advantages over rail-based systems. The running way, signal systems, and vehi- cles are less expensive to maintain—the costs are essentially the same as those for the adjacent road- way system and the local bus fleet. Moreover, the technicians for the local bus fleet can maintain the BRT system; a separate unit of specialized techni- cians, as for rail-based systems, is not necessary. Table 1 (above) illustrates the potential operating and maintenance cost advantages of BRT; the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Transit Database for 2013 is the source of the data. The table includes data for Cleveland, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Cleveland and Los Angeles have both BRT and light rail systems. In both cities, the operating and maintenance costs per unit of sup- ply—per revenue mile and revenue hour—and per unit of demand—per trip and passenger mile—are lower for BRT than for light rail. Moreover, by some of the measures of operating and maintenance expenditures, BRT is less costly than the local bus service. Pittsburgh has a light rail system, and a significant share of the city’s regular bus operations is on dedi- cated busways. Although the Pittsburgh bus system does not have the speed and efficiency advantages of full-featured BRT systems with off-board fare collec- tion and no-step boarding, it has high reliability and high operating speeds because of the extensive busway and high-occupancy vehicle systems. Com- pared with the local bus system and its many BRT features, Pittsburgh’s light rail has higher unit oper- ating and maintenance costs for every measure. The Las Vegas light rail operating and mainte- nance costs are for an automated monorail system. Without operators, the system should have low oper- ating labor costs, yet the operations and maintenance costs are higher than those of the city’s BRT and local bus systems. The table does not present a comprehensive com- parison and cannot be used to conclude that BRT is less costly to operate and maintain than similar light rail alternatives. Nonetheless, the data refute the notion that BRT necessarily will have higher operat- ing and maintenance costs. Pollution Myth Most BRT applications in North America use vehicles with advanced propulsion systems. The Cleveland and Hartford BRTs, for example, use hybrid systems with low sulfur–diesel, electric battery engines; Los Angeles BRT uses natural gas–fueled spark ignition engines. According to an FTA-sponsored study, these vehicles produce extremely low levels of all kinds of air emissions, especially in the BRT duty cycles that require much less starting and stopping than regular bus services (4). The same study also showed that, per unit of service distance, BRT systems emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases at levels lower than or comparable to rail systems powered by elec- tricity from power plants fueled by coal or natural gas. Moreover, the natural gas and hybrid electric BRT buses are much quieter than the all-diesel vehicles. In addition, some bus manufacturers offer battery- powered, electric-only buses with a distance range that exceeds typical BRT route lengths. The first bat- tery-powered articulated buses with acceptable ranges are entering the market. The Chinese manu- facturer BYD is testing a battery-powered articulated bus in Bogota for BRT applications. City $/revenue hour $/revenue mile $/passenger $/passenger mile LRT BRT Local Bus LRT BRT Local Bus LRT BRT Local Bus LRT BRT Local Bus Cleveland, Ohio 222.51 89.55 135.74 14.91 9.58 11.80 4.04 1.28 4.46 0.68 0.48 1.06 Los Angeles, California 359.02 210.42 139.22 17.74 12.81 12.67 3.69 2.69 2.66 0.58 0.43 0.65 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 324.07 NA 186.14 25.52 NA 14.32 6.42 NA 5.09 1.56 NA 1.30 Las Vegas, Nevada 136.74* 92.45 104.06 10.43* 7.52 8.76 5.09* 1.22 2.26 NA 0.24 0.64* *Monorail. Note: NA = not applicable. TABLE 1 Comparative Operating and Maintenance Costs (3) Martin Luther King, Jr., East Busway in Pitts - burgh, Pennsylvania; the city’s BRT system receives high marks for reliability and operating speeds. P H O TO : N A C TO TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 26

TR N EW S 303 M AY–JUN E 2016 27 Urban Development Myth Some critics claim that BRT will have little if any impact on urban development because the mode lacks the permanence that makes rail-based systems attractive to developers: to them, BRT’s inherent flex- ibility means that the service can be withdrawn. These assertions, however, overlook the permanence of BRT’s various infrastructure elements, such as busways and stations. Empirical evidence also refutes this myth. Like rail transit, BRT does not create the basic demand for housing or commercial space. Isolating the develop- ment impacts of a transit line or determining whether the observed development is a net addition to the economic activity of a region is always difficult. Evidence suggests that BRT can serve as a develop- ment tool when combined with other strategies to direct sustainable development to preferred locations supported by transit. Curitiba’s success in using BRT as a tool for sus- tainable development is well documented, but in other cities throughout Latin America, from Guadalajara, Mexico, to Lima, Peru, new clusters of walkable, transit-oriented development have grown up around BRT stations. Anecdotal evidence points to positive development effects near BRT stations in the United States. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, for instance, reports that the city’s Health BRT Line has brought more than $4 billion of investments into the city (5). Like- wise, the Los Angeles Daily News reports that the Orange Line BRT service influenced a $3 billion high-rise development in the West San Fernando Valley (6). A 2012 report by the U.S. Government Account- ability Office concluded that “the results of our land value analysis of BRT corridors also is consistent with the perception that the permanence of BRT features may play a role in spurring development and increas- ing land values” (7). In a 2013 study, Perk et al. con- cluded that increases in land price correlated with the distance to stations on Boston’s Silver Line BRT (8). Synthesizing case studies of BRT systems in Bogota and Ahmedabad, India, as well as survey results from 27 other cities, Cervero and Dai observed: Notably, BRT should be conceived as more than mobility investments. They also present unprece- dented opportunities for restructuring urban and regional growth in more sustainable formats. BRT can serve as a backbone for guiding growth in a more compact, mixed-use urban form—one that not only promotes transit riding and less driving, but also curbs sprawl and the significant costs associated with it. (9, p. 135, Section 7) Debunking the Myths Like all transit approaches, BRT should be viewed objectively. Experience has shown that properly planned, designed, and operated BRT can be cost- effective, enhance mobility, and improve the quality of urban living. As additional BRT systems develop, more empirical evidence will become available to assess the benefits and costs across a range of condi- tions. That evidence should inform decisions about BRT’s applicability and should not echo a litany of claims that have no basis. References 1. 35 of Yogi Berra’s Most Memorable Quotes. New York Post, Sept. 23, 2015. 2. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. 3. National Transit Database. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013. 4. Wayne, W. S. Transit Vehicle Emissions Program Final Report. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 2013. 5. Litt, S. The Rebirth of Euclid Avenue. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Feb. 10, 2008, p. 8. 6. Wilcox, G. J. Warner’s Rocketdyne Site Slated for $3 Billion Project. Los Angeles Daily News, March 27, 2014. 7. Wise, D. Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development. U.S. Gov- ernment Accountability Office, Washington D.C., 2012. 8. Perk, V., S. Bovino, M. Catalá, S. Reader, and S. Ulloa. Sil- ver Line Bus Rapid Transit in Boston, Massachusetts: Impacts on Sale Prices of Condominiums Along Washing- ton Street. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2350, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 72–79. 9. Cervero, R., and D. Dai. BRT TOD: Leveraging Transit- Oriented Development with Bus Rapid Transit Invest- ments. Transport Policy: Journal of the World Conference on Transport Research Society, No. 36, 2014, pp. 127–138. POINT OF VIEW presents opinions of contributing authors on transporta- tion issues. Readers are encouraged to comment in a letter to the editor on the issues and opin- ions presented. Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT has brought an estimated $4 billion in investments to the city. P H O TO : F LIC K R TRN_303.e$S_TRN_303 7/1/16 11:46 AM Page 27