Comments on: More BRT http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/ Transit in the Greater Seattle Area Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:07:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: First Details on Ballard RapidRide - Seattle Transit Blog http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-26553 First Details on Ballard RapidRide - Seattle Transit Blog Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:02:17 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-26553 [...] covered the A, B, and C lines extensively in the past, which cover Pacific Highway South, NE 8th St in Bellevue, and West Seattle.   The E line, which we don’t know much about, [...]
[...] covered the A, B, and C lines extensively in the past, which cover Pacific Highway South, NE 8th St in Bellevue, and West Seattle.   The E line, which we don’t know much about, [...]

]]> By: Martin http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-751 Martin Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:13:00 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-751 Brandon,<br/><br/>I agree that the capital isn't massive, compared to rail at least; however, there is certainly some capital expense in building the fancy new stations, electronic signage, signal controls, and in many cases the HOV/bus lanes.<br/><br/>If Sound Transit is going to go down the SR 99 corridor in less than 20 years, it would make a whole lot more sense to complement that rail by going down W Valley Hwy, as is the case with all the other RapidRide routes. In the end, we'd have a more comprehensive system.<br/><br/>For construction mitigation, I might advocate simply declaring one lane as a bus lane in each direction, and boost service, without all the other capital improvements.<br/><br/>But perhaps you're right. My main point is that BRT is a poor substitute for rail, in which we seem to agree.
Brandon,

I agree that the capital isn’t massive, compared to rail at least; however, there is certainly some capital expense in building the fancy new stations, electronic signage, signal controls, and in many cases the HOV/bus lanes.

If Sound Transit is going to go down the SR 99 corridor in less than 20 years, it would make a whole lot more sense to complement that rail by going down W Valley Hwy, as is the case with all the other RapidRide routes. In the end, we’d have a more comprehensive system.

For construction mitigation, I might advocate simply declaring one lane as a bus lane in each direction, and boost service, without all the other capital improvements.

But perhaps you’re right. My main point is that BRT is a poor substitute for rail, in which we seem to agree.

]]> By: Brandon http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-745 Brandon Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:44:00 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-745 You're making the mistake of buying in to the Sims / Sierra Club bs that BRT will be "dublicating" future light rail service.<br/><br/>No, it will be building ridership for the future.<br/><br/>Metro isn't putting much money at all into capital for Rapid Ride. When light rail shows up, the buses just get re-deployed east west, or to other corridors.<br/><br/>It's laughable Sims and his diesel-friendly pals at the Sierra Club think once a bus route is put into place, it should never be moved.<br/><br/>Bus routes change all the time.<br/><br/>Rapid Ride might also help mitigate construction impacts along 99 during the years of construction.<br/><br/>This is all basic stuff.
You’re making the mistake of buying in to the Sims / Sierra Club bs that BRT will be “dublicating” future light rail service.

No, it will be building ridership for the future.

Metro isn’t putting much money at all into capital for Rapid Ride. When light rail shows up, the buses just get re-deployed east west, or to other corridors.

It’s laughable Sims and his diesel-friendly pals at the Sierra Club think once a bus route is put into place, it should never be moved.

Bus routes change all the time.

Rapid Ride might also help mitigate construction impacts along 99 during the years of construction.

This is all basic stuff.

]]> By: Martin http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-743 Martin Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:48:00 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-743 I certainly agree.<br/><br/>In its RapidRide incarnation, it <i>is</i> cheaper than Light Rail, because it doesn't have the dedicated right-of-way that you want.
I certainly agree.

In its RapidRide incarnation, it is cheaper than Light Rail, because it doesn’t have the dedicated right-of-way that you want.

]]> By: SouthSeattle http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-738 SouthSeattle Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:26:00 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/10/26/more-brt/#comment-738 I wouldn't even be so categorical to say the Bus Rapid Transit is cheaper than light rail. The big federal study done a few years ago was pretty qualified on that point. To build a really effective BRT system, you need the same things that light rail requires: dedicated right-of-ways, stations, and maintenance facilities. That drives the capital investment pretty high for good BRT. And certainly after the initial investment is made, light rail is very cost competitive with BRT. The operating costs are often similar and are sometimes BETTER for light rail because the trains can carry huge numbers of people with a single operator. Those labor costs are usually the single largest operating expense. <br/><br/>See ttp://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt006.htm
I wouldn’t even be so categorical to say the Bus Rapid Transit is cheaper than light rail. The big federal study done a few years ago was pretty qualified on that point. To build a really effective BRT system, you need the same things that light rail requires: dedicated right-of-ways, stations, and maintenance facilities. That drives the capital investment pretty high for good BRT. And certainly after the initial investment is made, light rail is very cost competitive with BRT. The operating costs are often similar and are sometimes BETTER for light rail because the trains can carry huge numbers of people with a single operator. Those labor costs are usually the single largest operating expense.

See ttp://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt006.htm

]]>