Here is a look at some of the transportation headlines gathered by us and the Metro Library. The full list of headlines is posted on the Library’s Headlines blog, which you can also access via email subscription or RSS feed.
Honolulu is in the midst of a light rail versus bus rapid transit debate. Above the Orange Line's Reseda Station. Photo by Dan Reed, via Flickr creative commons.
BRT costs less than rail but it offers less and is a safety hazard (Honolulu Star-Advertiser)
In this opinion piece, Supervisor and Metro Board Member offers his perspective on a light rail versus bus rapid transit debate that is ongoing in Honolulu. And he doesn't mince words, explaining that he fought for the Crenshaw/LAX Line to be light rail because of several advantages he believes it holds over bus rapid transit. In particular, it's faster, more reliable and would do more to elevate the quality of life in neighborhoods near the line.
Ridley-Thomas also says that in Los Angeles, the Orange Line was a good option because it was built on an existing rail right-of-way and didn't disrupt existing streets. But he says the Orange Line has also offered some lessons — it's slower than he said was promised (only reducing travel time by 29 seconds per mile, he says) and it has to deal with too many intersections (unlike grade-separated trains).
Pretty interesting read! Of course, many light rail lines — including the Crenshaw/LAX Line — will still have to deal with at-grade crossings, although many of Metro Rail's crossings are gated. In the case of the Crenshaw/LAX Line, about half of the line will be below ground or on aerial structures — one reason the budget for the project is $1.75 billion. The Star-Advertiser requires registration in order to see articles.
Expo Line to Santa Monica going full throttle (Curbed LA)
Even with a lawsuit from homeowners in the Cheviot Hills area before the state Supreme Court, construction is visible at many sites on the Expo Phase 2 route.
A giant step for L.A. (ZevWeb)
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's website has a nice feature on Margot Ocanas, the city of Los Angeles' new (and first) pedestrian coordinator. Excerpt:
Their mission: making life better for walkers on streets that often were built mostly to enable automobiles get from Point A to Point B as efficiently as possible. The tools of transformation include reshaping lanes and crosswalks, changing signs and signals—anything to foster calmer corridors and reduce the “raceway mentality” that’s rampant on many streets.
South L.A. opposition to Measure J (Intersections South L.A./USC)
A brief look at several groups, including the Bus Riders Union, opposed to the ballot measure seeking to extend the Measure R half-cent sales tax from 2039 to 2069 in order to accelerate transit and road projects.
Posted with Blogsy
A news resport from a tv station in Hawaii got a telephone interview with UCLA professor Brian Taylor on the merits for choosing BRT or rail for that state. Even though the projected ridership is over three times that of the Orange Line he thought it would be a better choice to go with BRT.
Here’s some of that report:
Taylor told KITV4 rail systems often get mired in politics, as elected leaders point to shiny new rail lines as status symbols for their respective cities.
“When it comes to rail transit investments, there’s sort of an aspirational quality,” said Taylor. “It means we’re running with the big dogs. Elected officials say, ‘I don’t want to cut a ribbon in front of some new BRT system, when I could cut it in front of a rail system.’”
Taylor said with bus rapid transit, the system can expand as demand for public transportation increases. However, he cautions the cost of such systems tend to escalate with the construction of exclusive lanes for express buses.
“A big part of it is the amount of right of way that’s exclusive,” he said. “The more it’s exclusive, the faster operation you have, but the more you have to pay for it.”
Taylor’s research shows one of the greatest factors in determining a transit system’s appeal is the ease with which riders can get to a transit line, whether it’s BRT or rail. If a rider needs to go through various steps like walking, driving or transferring to get to a final destination, the less likely he or she is to use public transportation.
“So, making the vehicle a little bit faster is not nearly as important as having a cutting down of the wait time,” he said.
Read more: http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/UCLA-expert-weighs-in-on-transit-debate/-/8905354/17067102/-/j14883/-/index.html#ixzz2A4ncYwRr
If there is a limited stop route added to the Orange Line and the East San Fernando Valley corridor project along Van Nuys Blvd is built as BRT, then the wait time for passengers and transfers will be reduced for those traveling between the North Hollywood station and Pacoima.
@Dennis
You failed to quote the entire sentence from the FTA report in your original comment and I have not ignored anything except perhaps a line from the FTA report that strengthens my point and which I should perhaps have put more emphasis:
“Although the maximum operated carrying capacity per hour on the Orange Line is sufficient along most of the route, it is not adequate at maximum load points. Even if Metro increases its current load standard, the demand-to-capacity ratio would still be approaching 1.0, indicating that system capacity may be maxing out (see Section 4, subsection “Capacity”). Reducing HEADWAYS further is not a realistic option, as TSP would become ineffective.”
From Wikipedia:
Headway is a measurement of the distance or time between vehicles in a transit system. The precise definition varies depending on the application, but it is most commonly measured as the distance from the tip of one vehicle to the tip of the next one behind it, expressed as the time it will take for the trailing vehicle to cover that distance. A “shorter” headway signifies a more frequent service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headway
The FTA report is saying that reducing headway (by adding buses) would not by realistic. I understand that you want to add buses that are up to 98 feet long to increase capacity and your certainly entitled to that opinion.
Indeed the FTA report mentions “strategies” such as limited stop trips and bus platooning and feel that my other comments have addressed those issues. But please keep in mind that these are strategies and not offered as a cure and that these strategies may run into trouble with headways and more general traffic management.
As for your bias, let me quote your original comment:
“The main advantage that light-rail has over BRT is capacity. Most of the perceived technical superiority of LRT over buses is way overblown. The faster speeds of LRT compared to buses is mostly due to grade separation and gating at intersections. These can also be implemented on a BRT line.”
@in the valley
The problem with headway for the Orange Line is described in the FTA as centering on the ability of the transit signal priority (TSP) system to function properly. That’s why the report mentions the possiblity of platooning buses or skipping stops to overcome that limitation for increased capacity.
On page 5 of the report it states: “To accommodate the anticipated additional riders (due to the addition of the Chatsworth extension), Metro is considering different strategies, such as bus platooning, where multiple buses travel in a convoy; adding additional “tripper” buses that are deployed at times when passenger loads are high; and providing limited-stop trips.” My suggestion fits in with what Metro is considering to improve the capacity on the Orange Line.
Also, I don’t really have a bias towards buses. I just try to look at it as finding the technology that will meet the need, rather than the other way around. The type of transit should not be chosen based on emotional response and that is the way transit planners should work.
Rail vehicle appearance inside/outside, fare payment, stations, electric propulsion and exclusive right of way can all be duplicated by BRT. The amount of room around doors for light-rail can also be mostly duplicated on BRT by removing seats that are directly opposite the 2nd and 3rd doors on the 60-foot buses.
Starting on page 46, the FTA reports mentions results from a National Bus Rapid Transit Institute study that interviewed 2,400 transit and non-transit users in Los Angeles about the tangible and intangible differences between different transit modes. The findings show that people do perceive the various rapid transit modes differently, but the differences in perception appear to be independent of any particular mode or technology.
The tangible service qualities included door to door travel time, travel cost, frequency of service, hours of service, frequency and reliability of service. The Orange, Gold and Blue line received comparable tangible ratings.
The Orange and Gold Lines achieved significantly higher ratings for
the key intangible attributes of safety while riding, safety while at the station, station
comfort, and perceptions of other riders.
Overall, the study findings show that Full-Service BRT can replicate both the functionality standards (tangible attributes) and image qualities (intangible attributes) normally associated with the higher-investment LRT mode.
The main tangible differences between light-rail and BRT would be some ride quality and capacity. Those attributes requires an increased capital cost of at least three times more for light-rail compared to BRT. Resources to accomplish this are finite.
Spending these much greater amounts of money to pursue rail over BRT in order to get small improvements other than capacity takes away from using that money towards giving better service elsewhere in the system.
Your bias towards rail does not match up with the NBRTI survey results:
“Comparing light/heavy rail to buses is like comparing motorcycles and automobiles, yes this is a bad metaphor but so are the comparisons between these different forms of transportation”
@Dennis
The broad generalizations and condescending tone throughout your comments are too bad. I point out reasons why your scheme will probably not work out and have additionally pointed out that you have ignored points in the FTA report and did not fully quote entire sentences because they only hurt your subjective opinion being expressed here.
I could offer a differing point of view to your last two posts but your attack on me as having a bias just underscores your own unreasonableness, well, that and you can’t acknowledge any mistakes.
You express your opinion as though it were a fact and continue to expound on buses and generalize the issues in such a way as to praise BRT on the Orange line without even acknowledging any potential flaws in the scheme you presented.
I have said buses and trains are different forms of transportation and that is literally true yet you claim that I have a bias.
With that kind of reporting on your part it is no wonder why you are left with attacking the messenger and not really addressing the issues. Go ahead and please have the last comment, I know you want it, and I hope other readers have noted the extreme to which you hold a point of view.