NYC NY - An article in The Journal News reports on a transportation symposium that was sponsored by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. The symposium focused on bus rapid transit (BRT) rather than on light rail transit (LRT) and brought up some important points.
I read the article a few times but on the first pass the item that jumped out at me was the first sentence which read, "Bus rapid transit, if planned and built so that it is more than just a cheap version of light rail, could help ease congestion through the Tappan Zee Bridge/Interstate-287 corridor, several experts said at a symposium sponsored by The Tri-State Transportation Campaign".
I couldn't agree more about the concept of not making BRT a cheap version of an LRT line. BRT has the ability of being one of the most flexible modes of transportation available which is obtainable at a fraction of the cost of most other modes of public transport. To turn it into a cheap version of an LRT line severely limits the ability of the buses.
Busways such as those used in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, for example, are a prime example of how BRT can be flexible. Pittsburgh's busways are designed for the same buses that provide service elsewhere in the service area and don't require specialized equipment. On the opposite extreme is the BRT operation in Eugene Oregon which has limited itself to being an LRT wanna-be with specialized equipment.
Another point brought up is that BRT as an image problem. I agree again. Much of the negative image of BRT is thanks to the pro-rail crowd. By broadly painting bus transportation with terms such as "dirty", "low-class" and other negative connotations, the pro-rail activists have convinced many in the general public that rail is the answer and to ride a bus is slumming it.
What I find amusing are these two paragraphs:
Why is it that people will wait a half hour for an LRV and feel like winners but if they have to wait 11 minutes for a bus that they feel like losers? Much is the successful stereotyping that the pro-rail crowd as fed to the public.
Don't forget that in the 50's and 60's when rail was rapidly being replaced by buses, the opposite was true. The majority of people complained about having to ride the slow and ancient streetcars and wanted them replaced by buses. They felt like losers when they had to ride a slow streetcar but like winners when they could ride a bus that could bypass many of the problems that slowed the streetcars down.
This point was brought up to me by a friend who sent me the article and he is totally correct. It was completely a mirror image of today in terms of public perception. The only thing that has changed over the years is the flip-flop in the perception of buses and rail vehicles. We'll have another perception flip-flop with the same cities that clamored to get rid of rail in the 50's and 60's and are now clamoring to hop on the rail bandwagon today will be trying to get rid of rail once again in 40 or so years.
I read the article a few times but on the first pass the item that jumped out at me was the first sentence which read, "Bus rapid transit, if planned and built so that it is more than just a cheap version of light rail, could help ease congestion through the Tappan Zee Bridge/Interstate-287 corridor, several experts said at a symposium sponsored by The Tri-State Transportation Campaign".
I couldn't agree more about the concept of not making BRT a cheap version of an LRT line. BRT has the ability of being one of the most flexible modes of transportation available which is obtainable at a fraction of the cost of most other modes of public transport. To turn it into a cheap version of an LRT line severely limits the ability of the buses.
Busways such as those used in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, for example, are a prime example of how BRT can be flexible. Pittsburgh's busways are designed for the same buses that provide service elsewhere in the service area and don't require specialized equipment. On the opposite extreme is the BRT operation in Eugene Oregon which has limited itself to being an LRT wanna-be with specialized equipment.
Another point brought up is that BRT as an image problem. I agree again. Much of the negative image of BRT is thanks to the pro-rail crowd. By broadly painting bus transportation with terms such as "dirty", "low-class" and other negative connotations, the pro-rail activists have convinced many in the general public that rail is the answer and to ride a bus is slumming it.
What I find amusing are these two paragraphs:
But to build a bus rapid transit system that will attract riders by choice, Alan Hoffman, a principal with the Mission Group, a San Diego planning firm, said buses must get people where they want to go, do it quickly, frequently and with less than a 10-minute wait, and make them feel good about using it - all at once. Without all these elements, BRT is just another dreaded bus.
"We don't want to feel like losers," Hoffman said, adding that "often the experience of transit is a humbling experience."
Why is it that people will wait a half hour for an LRV and feel like winners but if they have to wait 11 minutes for a bus that they feel like losers? Much is the successful stereotyping that the pro-rail crowd as fed to the public.
Don't forget that in the 50's and 60's when rail was rapidly being replaced by buses, the opposite was true. The majority of people complained about having to ride the slow and ancient streetcars and wanted them replaced by buses. They felt like losers when they had to ride a slow streetcar but like winners when they could ride a bus that could bypass many of the problems that slowed the streetcars down.
This point was brought up to me by a friend who sent me the article and he is totally correct. It was completely a mirror image of today in terms of public perception. The only thing that has changed over the years is the flip-flop in the perception of buses and rail vehicles. We'll have another perception flip-flop with the same cities that clamored to get rid of rail in the 50's and 60's and are now clamoring to hop on the rail bandwagon today will be trying to get rid of rail once again in 40 or so years.
No comments:
Post a Comment