By Frank on May 4, 2009
Metro shows off its fancy new toys. Though I still find the paint scheme to be a bit ridiculous, I think they’ve done a fine job with the rest of the BRT aspects of the system, including GPS, shelters with clear information about service frequency, real-time arrival information, and multiple ORCA card readers.
Sadly, there’s still on-board fare collection (though the ORCA readers should help with that).
The real test of BRT, of course, is not the paint job or the GPS system, but the right-of-way in which it travels. I don’t know the A Line route very well, and I understand that Aurora and Bell-Red are going to get some more transit-friendly updates in the interim. But any bus that has to snake through Belltown and Queen Anne to get to Ballard is not going to be too much different from the 15 or 18 Express (though the 3rd Avenue routing should help a bit).
While we’re at it, here’s a suggestion for Metro and SDOT: the express buses that head north towards Queen Anne/Belltown from Downtown have to jag West on Broad, then North on First because there’s no traffic light at the corner of 3rd & Denny.
View Larger Map
Why not make that last little mini-block a transit-only lane heading Northbound on 3rd and have a transit-only traffic signal there? It could be reserved for Express buses, who don’t stop on 1st Ave anyway.
Posted in calculation
By bgtothen on November 20, 2008
via LostCarPark
Well the cost estimates are out. As Hugeasscity had a little bird tell him it looks like everyone is leaning towards Alternative C. It is a good balance between vehicle capacity and making the waterfront a great place to be. As pointed out in previous entries these different alternatives are not mutually exclusive rather just a mixture of different elements, many of these elements can be applied to most or all of the alternatives.
In order to make any of the surface alternatives viable there must also be a significant investment in transit including streetcars, rapid trolleys (anyone know what that is?), and rapidride. For a comparison I’m picking what most people in this blog and STB would pick. So…. let build a viaduct replacement.
Hybrid B/C: Capital/Operating (cost in millions)
Central Waterfront: Couplet – 900
I-5: Medium – 346
Surface: Medium – 291
Streetcars: High – 641/26
Transit: High – 476/60
Policies and Management: High – 24/36
Capital Cost – 2,678
Operating Cost – 122
Already Committed Costs – 1,100
Total Cost – 3,778
Funding + 2,390
Balance = 1,388
Below are the minimum cost for the other alternatives. As you can see the surface option with all the transit goodies is a good amount more expensive that the elevated option and falls mid-range in comparison to the underground/trenched alternatives. So if Hybrid B/C is to be built a compromise will probably have to be made. With Hybrid B/C the road improvement cost comes out to 2,346 million, roughly 400-900 million less than the elevated options. Although the elevated alternatives aren’t where this region or its leaders want to go I think this will limit how many transit goodies can be added on top. If they all cost 2,778 million we could justify coming up with the extra money and spending it on transit. My guess is that both Rapidride and the streetcars will be scaled back with the streetcars taking a larger hit unless alternative funding (federal, LID, etc) can be found.
Elevated Alternatives Minimum Cost = 2,700 to 3,200.
Underground/Trenched Alternatives Minimum Cost = 3,000 to 4,600
A huge thing that wasn’t factored in was tolls. Everyone is thinking about them. If tolling on I-90 and SR-520 start in 2010 and they improve traffic, which the models show they will, this region might move ahead with region wide tolling faster than expected… I think???
Posted in calculation, Eastside, gregnickels, newyork, Taken For A Ride, You
By serial catowner on July 26, 2008
The Switchback looks at the current effort to build Bus Rapid Transit in Boston:
“If the Silver Line were a rail project – as basically every public-transit using citizen would prefer it – the MBTA could simply reactivate the rail tunnel leading from Boylston Station down Tremont to the Church of All Nations, and build a portal at Eliot Norton Park. There are already platforms for it at Boylston Station. That would make most of the tunnel work unnecessary.
The current plan calls for the state to spend several hundred million dollars of taxpayer money to dig a new tunnel down Boylston, then down Charles
to the Church of All Nations site at Eliot Norton Park.”
And at Seattle Transit Blog a commenter looks at fast buses in Seattle:
“During the campaign, it was emphasized that buses could be brought online in terms of months, not years (a dig at light rail construction times). So, the measure passes, and we find out that RapidRide wont see the light of day in Ballard or on Aurora until 2013. Thats seven years out from 2006.”
What do these items have in common? That’s right- BRT is neither cheaper nor faster to build. No matter what you might say about a mixed system or buses needed as feeders or matching the traffic requirements with the market, at the end of the day, BRT is most likely to be a fraud.
I’ll let other people be “reasonable” and concede that, if you grant a lot of things that never will happen, BRT “might” work. When I look around at all these existing BRT implementations and find delay, financial ruin, and angry riders, I’ve had enough. BRT is a fraud.
Posted in book, calculation, rail transit, time
By bgtothen on June 10, 2008
My last post got me thinking about the 98/99-B Line again. Most of you are familiar with my previous Metro ridership posts, however I don’t think that I ever explained the reason I started looking at those numbers.
While attending the CITE conference in Victoria I talked to a engineer who worked for Vancouver. We got to talking about TransLink’s Gateway projects and specifically the Broadway Line and he said that basically TransLink can’t add any more buses because they are already running at 2.4 minute headways.
This in-turn got me thinking about routes here, none of which run that often. Anyways coming full circle today I become curious about how Seattle’s transit stacks up against Vancouver’s in terms of riders per mile (which I think is the best measure). Here are the results. Because I had to pull projected riderships and non Metro information this is less accurate, although you get a good idea of where things fall.
The biggest thing is that the B-Line has huge ridership, almost more than Central LINK per mile. It achieves this with a medium BRT treatment which shows that BRT can handle lots of people. With that said I think it also shows that the B-Line corridors should already have Skytrain.
Also these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt because the GVA has much higher densities than almost anywhere in the Seattle area outside Downtown/Cap Hill/UW. Then again that is an integral part of transit ridership isn’t it.
Skytrain is huge success and it shows. Also you can see that the initial Link segments has comparable ridership to the B-Lines but with any expansion plan now on the table it will grow rapidly and be comparable to Skytrain when it opens. Also notice how the old ST2 or a solo Eastside expansion don’t have amazing ridership compared to the other options. Goes to show how important the North and U LINK are for ridership.
Oh and poor Rapidride. It makes me want to laugh. Although then again Metro is spending ~2.5 million a mile for it which is a fraction of LINK. I had to make an educated guess (120% 54 and 358 ridership) because I couldn’t find any ridership projections. My guesses may be way off but we will have to wait until it opens.
Posted in calculation, carless, commute, exurbs, Rail Tunnel, roads
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments