Comments on: Swift BRT Update

By: Designing for Livability Liveblog Part 3 - Seattle Transit Blog

Designing for Livability Liveblog Part 3 - Seattle Transit Blog — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:56:40 +0000

[...] Community Transit’s Swift — opening last next month — is largely focused on reducing dwelling time, said June DeVall, Manage of Strategic Planning at Community Transit. With three extra-wide entrances, off-board payments and ORCA readers, on-board (rather than front-loading) bike racks, and marked locations at each station indicating where the bus entrances will be — it seems like Community Transit actually has gone to great lengths to reduce dwell times. In fact, it’s slightly more impressive than Metro’s RapidRide which won’t feature off-board payment at all stations, will retain front-loading bike rikes, and will lack other amenities of Swift. On the other hand, RapidRide will have up to six lines whereas Swift is just one route. [...]

By: Zed

Zed — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:30:45 +0000

You could take Swift to Everett Station and then take an express to downtown Seattle. Would that be faster than your current bus? Are they cutting the bus that you normally take when Swift starts running?

By: Juliet

Juliet — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:51:55 +0000

I’m sort of confused by this. Right now, I take a bus to Everett Station and take another bus to downtown Seattle. So now, I will take a bus from right outside my house (I live next to a Swift stop) and go to Aurora Village and take another bus to downtown Seattle? Seems about the same time/effort to me. If I didn’t live by a Swift stop, it would now be three buses.

By: Kaleci

Kaleci — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:25:51 +0000

I believe some of the seats will be backward facing also.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:09:49 +0000

In any case, there’s no chance of a purist BRT system being built in this region. It would cost as much as rail, have higher ongoing costs for fuel and resurfacing the roadway, and (although people differ on this) have less capacity.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:04:30 +0000

‘By all accounts, including the original post, Bus Rapid Transit seems to be missing the “RAPID.”’

It’s the same sleight of hand by which cities call their regular bus service “X Area Rapid Transit”.

It doesn’t bother me that BRT has multiple meanings. I was quite impressed with the Granville Street bus in Vancouver that preceded the Skytrain. Frequent service, fast, with large stations widely spaced. It wouldn’t fit the purist definition of BRT with a dedicated ROW, but it was as close to a train as any bus I’ve seen. I hope Swift/RapidRide will be as good. I also hope Metro will keep local routes on the same streets for people who can’t walk to a BRT station.

By: Gordon Werner

Gordon Werner — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:44:34 +0000

I thought this would have been mentioned …

but today (yesterday the 18th) was the 1 month anniversary of the start of Central Link service

By: Z

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:30:17 +0000

Its my understanding the model of coach is actually xx60A, D if they are straight diesel, or DE if they are hybrids. I had the oppertunity to ride the line in eugene this past weekend, which uses level boarding, and drivers side doors. I will say the uniqueness of the line would seem to pose some operational challenges (i.e. not being able to subsitute conventional equipment) which meant the 6 or so buses they have were starting to look a bit ratty afer going between eugene and springfield all day, nearly every day for the past 3 years. Also it was intresting to see their mix of curbside and island type stops in some areas, apparantly traffic must not be that much of a concearn, but other than that the system was clean and fairly nice, they areimplementing pay stations and fares on the line plus constructing a new line and in the planning stages for a third. The ride was quick i will say that, and had some appeal of rail to it however, a bus is and always will be a bus. One thing that the system did lack was next bus information at the stations.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:46:48 +0000

BRT = “Just like rail but cheaper”

BRT = “juust cheaper”

BRT = “still a bus”

If you build a mostly separated right of way, it is cheaper to operate as rail and provides a higher quality ride for all passengers.

When I read that they may still have local service on this corridor, it is worth remembering that total trip time is wait time plus travel time. If the frequency of each service is reduced because there is a need to have both rapid and local service, then the wait time is increased for every rider. Everyone’s travel may be improved by greater frequency of a single service which makes the necessary stops to cover the corridor

By: Oran Viriyincy

Oran Viriyincy — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:36:15 +0000

About $30 Million for the entire project according to Community Transit’s CEO.

By: Sungsu

Sungsu — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:23:14 +0000

What really matters is whether the buses get stuck in traffic. So if the sections that don’t have exclusive lanes don’t slow down service, for all intents and purposes, it’s BRT.

By: Oran Viriyincy

Oran Viriyincy — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:21:53 +0000

That’s the problem with how agencies and organizations use the term “BRT”. It can be so broad that it’s almost meaningless, that is one aspect of the “flexibility” of BRT. It dilutes the the distinction between what good bus service should be and what more it could be if given its own right-of-way.

Many of the features Swift and RapidRide BRT are touting, transit priority, better stop spacing, real time info displays, frequent service, streamlined payment etc., already exist in Europe as standard features of regular bus service. Even Vancouver is doing it. It’s not BRT, it’s just quality bus service.

What comes to mind when I hear the term BRT are the systems in Curitiba, Bogota, Ottawa, and Brisbane where they have dedicated exclusive busways. Now that’s high capacity, rapid transit.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:21:17 +0000

By all accounts, including the original post, Bus Rapid Transit seems to be missing the “RAPID.”

All that seems to make it “rapid” are fewer stops and occasional bus lanes. They’re routes that are generally already well-used – the same people just get a 5-or-10-minute shorter ride. And for people who can’t get to those stops (i.e., people in not-as-nice areas), they get fewer buses, making their ride much less, um, rapid.

To be truly rapid, it would require a dedicated path of travel, without traffic lights. And if you’re going to put in a dedicated path of travel, why not put a train on it instead? Then maybe think about running more frequent buses from the neighborhoods TO it. Like good transit systems do.

Ohhhh…I guess THAT’S why we’re getting Bus Rapid Transit: so it LOOKS like we’ve made it easier to get around the city.

How much is this costing again??

By: Jessica

Jessica — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:42:59 +0000

Thank-you (concerning wheelchair direction)

By: Pete Lorimer

Pete Lorimer — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:28:52 +0000

So how does this work? It a Swift bus is heading down 99 in the BAT lane and a CT but has stopped in that lane at one of the regular bus stops, the Swift has to merge into the general purpose (and slow moving at rush hour) lanes to get around it?

By: Sahctu

Sahctu — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:43:15 +0000

Riders in wheelchairs can also face forward if that’s what they choose. It’s just that the rear-facing position means no tie-downs are necessary, so many customers would not require any driver assistance. There are still tie-downs available in each wheelchair seating area for both the forward- and rear-facing directions, so that riders have a choice.

Also, regarding the question about all the other stops along Highway 99: Community Transit will continue to operate route 101 so that riders can access the intermediate stops (as well as Mariner Park & Ride) but at longer headways, maybe 20 or 30 minutes.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:32:39 +0000

Rear-facing wheelchair area?

Uh, no! I’d like to be able to see where I’m going, thank-you (which is one of the reasons I hardly ride Sounder, the wheelchair area is usually (but not always) where there’s no window)

By: Transit Voter

Transit Voter — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:29:05 +0000

Snohomish County folks who want to travel south won’t be opting for LINK anytime in the near future, that being a 15-year project. And they will only opt for LINK when they are headed down the I-5 corridor or to the U District.

If they are going down Aurora Ave., they will want a Swift or Rapid Ride.

You may have a point about a Seattle-to-Everett route via Hwy 99 being too long. With close headways (15 minutes or better) it could be tough to keep on an even schedule.

By: DJStroky

DJStroky — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:29:22 +0000

Providing a single seat ride along Aurora would make for a bus route that would be too long. Plus, most people wanting to travel from southeast Snohomish County to points south will probably opt for LINK, the 510 or the 511.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:56:53 +0000

The transit-only lanes don’t cover the entire route.