Friends of BRT Blog

Berkeley Commission Hearings On BRT

2009-11-08T19:48:00.000-08:00

New dates have been set for the commission hearings on BRT:

Transportation Commission Meeting, Thursday, Nov. 19, 7 p.m.

Planning Commission Meeting, Wednesday, Dec. 9, 7 p.m.

Both meetings will be preceded by an informational session at 6PM, when staff will answer questions about the proposed Locally Preferred Alternative.

Both meetings will be held at North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst (at MLK Junior Way)

Send emails supporting the project to brt@cityofberkeley.info.

Hybrid Buses Become More Popular

2009-10-22T12:04:00.000-07:00

The East Bay's BRT line will probably use clean diesel buses initially, but bus lines are rapidly shifting hybrid buses, according to this story from today's New York Times.

As Hybrid Buses Get Cheaper, Cities Fill Their Fleets

By Micheline Maynard

If you wonder whether hybrid-electric vehicles will ever catch on, simply ask one of the millions of people who ride in them every day.

Hybrid-electric buses, that is.

Transit systems from New York to Taipei, and from Ames, Iowa, to Ann Arbor, Mich., are adding hybrid buses at a rapid clip. New York, by far, has the nation's biggest fleet of hybrid buses, which run on electricity and diesel fuel, with nearly 1,000 in all five boroughs, most in Manhattan.

Although the initial cost is well above that of a conventional diesel-powered bus, hybrid buses emit less pollution and get far better fuel economy. They are quieter than old-style buses, and their ride is generally more comfortable (not accounting for the condition of city streets). Like the hybrid taxis that have become a common sight in New York, hybrid buses arrived during the last decade.

…

The buses' performance has been impressive .... Each is expected to save the city 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel, compared with what would be consumed by a conventional bus, or a 45 percent improvement in fuel economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/automobiles/autospecial2/22BUS.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hybrid%20bus&st=cse

Update on Berkeley & San Leandro Meetings

2009-10-08T02:54:00.000-07:00

Berkeley's October 17 Meeting/Workshop Postponed

Or has it been canceled? The answer isn't altogether clear. It definitely ain't happening. Stay tuned for updates.

San Leandro Meetings Still On

Here is the schedule for the San Leandro meetings:

Thursday, October 22
6:30 – 8:30 pm, presentation at 7
San Leandro Public Library
300 Estudillo Avenue
San Leandro, 94577

Tuesday, October 27
6:30 – 8:30 pm, presentation at 7
Bayfair Mall
Second floor, near center escalators
15555 E. 14th Street
San Leandro, 94578

Saturday, November 7
10:00 am – 12:00 pm, presentation at 10:30
City Hall South Office
835 E. 14th Street
San Leandro, 94577

Transportation Commission Hearing On LPA

2009-09-18T14:35:00.000-07:00

This meeting has been postponed. When the date is reset, we will add that information to the blog.

Berkeley Transportation Commission confirmed yesterday that it will hold a public hearing at its meeting of October 29 on Berkeley's Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for AC Transit's BRT proposal.

The Commission meets at the North Berkeley Senior Center at 7 PM.

We expect the opposition will be out for this hearing, and we urge all supporters of BRT to attend.

Locally Preferred Alternative for Berkeley Available

2009-09-10T10:24:00.000-07:00

City staff has developed a draft of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for BRT in Berkeley.

For complete information about the draft LPA, see
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=43568

Here is a map showing the BRT route and stops in Berkeley's draft LPA:

These meetings have been postponed. When the date is reset, we will add that information to the blog.

The city has scheduled the following meetings about the LPA:

Public Workshop to present the draft LPA to the public: Saturday, October 17, 2009 from 10:30AM to 1:30PM in the Berkeley Main Library.
Transportation Commission hearing: Thursday, October 29, 2009
Planning Commission hearing: Wednesday, November 18, 2009

For more information about the public workshop, see http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Planning_(new_site_map_walk-through)/Level_3_-_General/Flyer_BRTWorkshop101709.pdf We will post more information about the hearings as information becomes available.

The Ultimate Freeway Interchange

2009-08-28T11:03:00.000-07:00

Here is a prediction of what the world will look like if we do not build BRT and other forms of public transportation.

[Art Credit: hock / behance network. Used under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND-3.0 license. ]

BRT Can Make Major Contribution To Fighting Global Warming

2009-07-22T14:06:00.000-07:00

From the Climate Progress Blog:

Massive deployment of BRTs, where appropriate, could be part of the answer to avoiding catastrophe while ending poverty. Global emissions linked to transportation are set to double by 2030. ... The global climate treaty that will be hammered out in Copenhagen must confront this problem in addition to addressing energy generation, efficiency, and deforestation.

The treaty could finance the massive planning and construction that will be needed to expand BRTs through carbon offsets. In fact, Bogotá’s BRT was recently the first transportation project to receive funding through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM. Under the CDM, industries in the developing world that manage to reduce their emissions receive credits that they can sell to polluters in industrialized countries looking to reduce their footprint. Bogotá will be selling 250,000 tons of CO2 equivalent to the government of the Netherlands in the coming years. This offset scheme could be a way for developed countries to meet emissions caps, as is currently being proposed to fund anti-deforestation efforts.

Thankfully, China and India—the two major emitters in the developing world—seem to be embracing such a technology. More than 30 projects are being implemented or studied in China alone. Their robust adoption of this and other efficient mass transport solutions will be critical.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/19/making-buses-cool-again-bus-rapid-transit-brt-bogota/

Alan Tobey's commentary on the BRT combined service proposal

2009-07-17T19:50:00.000-07:00

Our esteemed fellow FBRT member, Alan Tobey, published an excellent commentary on BRT in the July 17 issue of the Daily Planet. It explains how the proposed combined service option, now favored by AC Transit and leaders from the three BRT cities, will work. To read the commentary click here.

False Claims in Measure KK Ballot Argument

2008-09-11T16:15:00.000-07:00

I have this opinion piece in the current Daily Planet:

False Claims In Anti-Transit Initiative Ballot Argument

The city clerk has published the ballot arguments for Measure KK, the anti-transit initiative, and anyone who is familiar with the issues can see that the measure’s backers have filled their ballot argument with false claims.

Measure KK backers claim that AC Transit’s Bus Rapid Transit project would eliminate local bus stops.

In fact, AC Transit is considering two alternatives plans and has not decided which to implement. Separate service, with local buses running in the mixed traffic lanes, would certainly not eliminate any local bus stops. Combined service, with local buses running in the dedicated BRT lanes, could conceivably eliminate some local bus stops, but the final decision on location of bus stops in would depend on input from the Berkeley Planning Commission and City Council. We will not know how BRT affects local bus stops until we see the final environmental impact report (EIR).

Measure KK backers claim that most parking would be removed along the route.

In fact, AC Transit has promised to replace parking removed in all locations where there is a shortage of parking. A shortage is defined as a vacancy rate of less than 15 percent for off-street parking; planners agree that, when the vacancy rate is higher than this, it is easy to find on-street parking. We will not know how AC Transit plans to replace parking until we see the final EIR.

Measure KK backers claim that travel time saved by BRT will be insignificant.

In fact, the average bus trip in the corridor will be 15 percent to 30 percent faster than it is now. AC Transit is currently calculating the total net time savings for all transportation in the corridor, and it is expected to be large. This figure will also be in the final EIR.

Measure KK backers claim that energy savings will be insignificant and that BRT is not “green.”

In fact, BRT will save enough energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over six million pounds per year. The draft EIR was written at a time when the law did not yet require EIRs to study greenhouse gas reductions. Because the law has changed, the final EIR will contain these figures.

All of the backers’ ballot arguments are based on the draft EIR. They apparently do not realize that a draft EIR is a first draft, as its name implies. Projects are changed based on public comments on the draft EIR, and we will not know what the actual BRT project is until we see the final EIR. Berkeley’s Planning Commission has not even developed the city’s input on the draft EIR yet, and we do not know what routes they will support or what mitigations they will want.

Measure KK backers are telling us to make the decision about BRT before we have all the facts.

Most absurd, Measure KK backers claim that their initiative will not be costly, as the city attorney’s analysis says. They say: “leave our streets alone—and this measure will cost zero.”

In other words, they say that we should do nothing to build environmentally sound transportation—never implement light rail in Berkeley, and never implement BRT in Berkeley, even though these are the most cost-effective ways of improving public transportation.

Their arguments focus narrow mindedly on AC Transit’s current proposal for BRT. They do not seem to realize that, if their initiative passed, it would be in effect for the indefinite future. It would apply to light rail as well as to BRT. It would apply to every street in Berkeley.

It would mean long delays and large added costs for any light rail or BRT project proposed in Berkeley, which could kill these projects. This would be a major obstacle to Berkeley’s attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the key environmental issue in the 21st century.

Measure KK backers are very good at shooting from the hip.

They are shooting from the hip by basing all their arguments on the draft EIR for AC Transit’s current BRT project, saying that we should reject the project before we even see the final EIR and know what its final design is.

They are shooting from the hip by thinking only of the current project and not realizing that their initiative would be an obstacle to all future light-rail or BRT projects in Berkeley.

I think they will learn that, when you shoot from the hip, you are likely to end up shooting yourself in the foot.

Bus Rapid Transit Will Provide Far Better Service Than Rapid Bus Plus

2008-08-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

Roy Nakadegawa asked me to post this.

Bus Rapid Transit Will Provide Far Better Service Than Rapid Bus Plus
by Roy Nakadegawa P.E.

Weekly one reads of environmental and climatic devastations attribute to the increase of Greenhouse gases. For our Region half of our GHGemissions is attributed to transportation. We emit the greatest amount of GHG on a per capita basis than any country because of our great use of the auto. As a responsible world citizen shouldn’t we reduce the emissions from autos and consider building more walkable communities and using public transit?

Berkeley a well known progressive city has an opportunity to consider the development of a faster, reliable and convenient transit systemcalled Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that will compete favorably to the auto. But there is resistance from a group called “Berkeleyans For BetterTransportation Options (BBTOP)”

BBTOP has proposed a plan they call Rapid Bus Plus (RB+) in lieu of BRT. Their proposal would add some features of BRT, which BBTOP claim would work almost as well without BRT’s dedicated bus lanes.

Researching their plan, it appears it will not provide any significant improvement over the current 1R Rapid Bus (1R).

BBTOP plan’s major addition to current 1R bus in time saving is the use Proof of Payment (POP), which saves time because riders will nothave to take time to pay fares when they enter the bus.

Studies indicate that POP will decrease the dwell time roughly 2-2.5 seconds per passenger when groups of five or more board at a stop. It isestimated around 7,300 daily trips are made on 1R within Berkeley. About 12% of these trips will be during peak hour or 875 boardings. Ifthe buses operate at 4-minute intervals (15 buses per hour), each bus will carry an average 59 riders per bus. With POP and 59 boardings, triptime saving with would be about 2.1 minutes per bus during peak hour.

However, for the handicapped in Portland, they deploy the ramp/lift 0.07% of their total trips and estimated that each boarding cycle takesan average of 81 seconds. The percent of riders using the ramp/lift is greater in Berkeley than in Portland, because Berkeley has long historyfor accommodating handicapped people and have attracted a greater users. Using the slightly higher number of 0.08% of ramp/lift users for Berkeley, with 875 boardings during a peak hour involves 7.0 handicapped boardings per hour. Spreading this among the 15 buses, the average will be 0.47 handicapped boarding per bus, or an average delay of 38 seconds for each bus.

With curbside boarding, the buses also need to maneuver out and back into traffic, adding an average delay of 4 seconds per stop. With 5 stops in Berkeley the delay will be 20 seconds for each bus.

Because of these two delays, the time saving from POP will be reduced to about 1 minutes per bus.

But, there is another current problem where the 1R frequently operates off schedule that RB+ does not address. Even during off peak the 1R carrying less passengers one sees the 1R buses often enter Berkeley in tandem or just a minute apart.

One of the most successful rapid bus line, Wilshire/Whittier Metro Rapid Bus in L.A. combined with their local bus handles 90,000 trips per day. It has experienced deteriorating irregular service due to increased Traffic, so they have now applied for funds to convert 7 miles of this line to operate as BRT.

Since, RB+ with POP will not prevent buses from being stuck in traffic to save about 1 minutes per bus, as calculated above, this time savings will decrease as well as its reliability as traffic increases.

In the near future, Berkeley’s traffic will increase far more than what we ever experienced for Berkeley will build 2,500 living units in the downtown area while the University will build major attractions and offices, plus there are plans for a large hotel with meeting facilities, all which will attract additional offices, businesses, jobs and people.

For improved transit, the BRT with dedicated lanes will have raised platforms to allow level boarding for the disabled with buses equipped with guided docking that assures a narrows gap that allows boarding similar to BART. This eliminates the delay to use of ramp/lift and there will be no delay for buses to merge into traffic, so its total time saving would clearly be three times greater than RB+ and provide greater reliability.

With BRT, the handicapped would have more immediate and greater access than access to BART stations for it would eliminate the need to use the time consuming elevators before and after using BART.

BRT buses will not have to maneuver through traffic and will be able to take maximum advantage of signal priority because buses will not be backed up behind other vehicles at intersections, as the 1R or the RB+ will be. BRT buses will by-pass the queued cars.

In summary, as traffic increases BRT will be far superior to BBTOP’s RB+ proposal. BRT will take full advantage of POP, provide EASY boarding for all with increased reliability and convenience and its time saving will increase more than three times over that of RB+ deteriorating one minute. For these reasons, the BRT with will reduce GHG, provide a good transit alternative that attracts more transit users, similar what BART has experienced with growing congestion and increasing cost of fuel.

BRT In Streetswiki

2008-07-31T10:11:00.000-07:00

Streetswiki is a collaborative resource focusing on alternative transportation and livable streets. Their entry on bus rapid transit is at http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/bus-rapid-transit.

Learning from Lerner MetropolisMag.com 6/29/2008

2008-06-21T12:18:00.000-07:00

URBAN JOURNAL
Learning from Lerner
The former mayor of Curitiba, Brazil is carrying his message of sustainability to the world’s burgeoning cities. Lesson one: get rid of your car.

By David Sokol
Posted May 29, 2008
Next year marks the 35th anniversary of a simple but transformative idea in urban planning and transportation: Curitiba, Brazil launched a surface bus system that behaves like a subway. Better than, in some ways. Double-articulated vehicles carry large volumes of commuters, passengers prepay their fare in glazed boarding tubes, designated lanes keep traffic flowing smoothly, and one bus trails the next by one minutes’ distance. Curitiba’s transit system was established with little municipal investment and at a fraction of the cost of subterranean excavation, and today it carries some 2 million people per day.

Jaime Lerner was serving his first term as mayor of Curitiba when the city’s bus system began service, and the innovation catapulted the then-37-year-old architect and urban planner not only to two more terms as mayor and another two as governor of Parana State, but also to the forefront of contemporary urban planning and of the nascent sustainability movement. (Indeed, besides public transportation, Lerner implemented a recycling program in Curitiba that still enjoys an impressive participation rate.) Lerner has deftly juggled his design and political careers, and since 2003 he has run an eponymous architecture firm from Curitiba. I caught up with Lerner on a typical whirlwind day—between charming a group of Filipino researchers and making a presentation to a delegation from the United Nations—to clarify points he made at Tropical Green, a February 2006 conference sponsored by Metropolis, and to take his pulse on recent phenomena like boomtown China.

In many respects, the world has caught up to your common-sense approach to sustainability. What events inspired you to embrace those values so early on?
It was logic. We realized that sustainability is a whole discussion. Most people think that sustainability is just green buildings. That’s very important, but it’s not enough. Or that sustainability is new materials, new sources of energy, or recycling, but that’s enough, either. When you see that cities are responsible for 75 percent of all carbon emissions, then it’s in cities where we can find a more effective answer. It’s at the very conception of cities where we have to do this work.

What is a more ideal plan for battling climate change at an urban scale?
One step is to use your car less. Cities will have to provide an alternative public transit. The second is separating garbage, because you can save a lot of energy, even your own. The third is to live closer to work, or to work closer to home. And this is the key issue, because our cities have more and more separation.

Those steps don’t seem too difficult. What about the famous Curitiba bus system: That, too, sounds painless to realize. Has it been adopted widely?
At the moment there are 82 cities around the world. Some of them did it differently, but more or less, it’s Curitiba. I don’t try to prove which system is the best; I know it’s okay to have buses or subways or light rail, as long as the system is a good system. The key issue is to never compete in the same space. They have to be complementary.

Without ranking them, then, what cities have embraced this bus concept particularly well?
They’re not all done, but they include Seoul, Bogotá, Mexico City, the Los Angeles orange line, and many Chinese cities. Even cities that have complete subways, like London and Paris, are also thinking of having a good surface system.

We cannot be dependent on the car. I’ve repeated this saying many times, but I feel it is very appropriate: The car is like our mother in-law. We have a good relationship with her, but we cannot let her conduct our lives. In other words, if the only woman in your life is your mother in-law, then you have a problem.

You mentioned the conception of cities, and now is a time when those births are taking place around the globe. What is your perspective of the new cities coming up throughout the Middle East, India, Korea, and China?
Why are European cities better than most American cities? Because they have mixed uses and mixed incomes. These cities are more human, more diverse. Most of the new cities in Asia and the Middle East are building ghettos for very rich people and ghettos for very poor people. This is not a good coexistence; it’s really terrible, in fact. Some people living in cities are so crazy about their safety and protection that they can barely leave the house without thinking criminals are after them. They are the real prisoners.

You have speaking engagements in the U.S. frequently—such as the Sarasota Design Conference, which is coming up on June 6.
When I go to a city, I try to give testimony about what we did in Curitiba, to show that it’s possible.

Do you tailor your message to the peculiarities of American audiences?
No, everyone understands. Even in Oklahoma City there are people who understand the message. People are starting to understand cities’ quality of life, about why we have to have a mix of uses and good public transport. Of course the message has different meanings in different cities, but the basic idea is that we don’t need to do what we’ve been doing. There has to be a change.

At Tropical Green, you mentioned that you are performing “fast acupuncture” on cities all over the world.
In many cities there are a few focal points that can effect a really great change, points that are not part of the whole planning process, but that can give a new energy to the city. It’s like acupuncture. Planning takes time, but sometimes you have to offer ideas that accomplish it immediately.

Can you give some examples of this?
Where do you live?

In New York.
One great acupuncture in New York is that some places have been transformed by cultural decisions, like Chelsea, Soho, or Williamsburg. They are not related to a global plan, but they will help the whole process of city planning and energize it.

In Paris, I.M. Pei’s Louvre pyramids are a wonderful example of acupuncture. With one gesture he provided the solution to a 300-year-old problem about entering and organizing the museum. So that’s what I like to do recently: go to some place, work with people for a week, propose one or two ideas, and if they like, they can make it happen.

Would you say it’s important for there to be architects and urban planners in elected positions in order to foster experimentation within cities?
Not necessarily. The most important element is having good decision-making and a good equation of co-responsibility. And any mayor, architect or not, has to be open to new ideas. I work with governments and private initiatives—as long as they are interested in improving the quality of their city, then I’m there.

Would you say that Curitiba has problems today that you could not have foreseen 35 years ago?
Every city has new problems every moment, and every mayor has a new challenge. The good thing about Curitiba is that the people are used to innovation and demand it from every mayor.

* * *

Original Story Can Be Found At:
http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=3390

BRT and BART Redux

2008-06-11T12:54:00.000-07:00

In response to the previous post about BRT and BART, Rob Wrenn sends me the following:

The fact that 25,000 people a day have used buses on the corridorshould be evidence enough that BART can't serve everyone's needs, but if more evidence on why BART doesn't fully serve the BRT corridor is needed, consider this info on BART station spacing:

From Wikipedia, BART, distance between stations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit
BART: 104 miles, 43 stations (1 under construction).
Do the math: 1 station every 2.4 miles.

By contrast, the Paris Metro, with, according to Wikipedia, the mostc losely spaced metro stations in the world:382 stops, 298 stations (some stations serve more than one line), 133 miles.So almost 3 stops per mile in Paris compared to one stop every 2.4 miles for BART

For specific distances between BART stations along the proposed BRT route, I looked at a map and measured:

Downtown Berkeley to Ashby: about 1.2 miles, 18 1/2 blocks
Ashby to MacArthur, 1.75 miles, 28 1/2 blocks
MacArthur to 19th St, 1.5 miles, 26 1/2 blocks
19th to 12th Street, .35 miles, 7 blocks
12th to Lake Merritt, .65 miles
Lake Merritt to Fruitvale: about 2.75 miles
Fruitvale to Coliseum: 2.1 miles
Coliseum to San Leandro: 2.9 miles
San Leandro to Bayfair: 2.45

I live about the same distance from Ashby BART and Downtown Berkeley BART (somewhat closer to Ashby). I walk at a fairly brisk pace and it takes me about 15 minutes walk to get to Ashby BART (I think it would take my wife 5 minutes longer at her normal pace). It works out to be 9 blocks or 8 tenths of a mile, and you have to wait for traffic signals to cross some streets such as Ashby. Many people just won't walk that far or take that much time to get to a public transit stop.

I live only two blocks from Telegraph and the proposed BRT corridor. People who won't walk nine blocks like I do, might walk two, three, four blocks to Telegraph to get a bus to downtown Oakland (or Pill Hill or downtown Berkeley) if the service is reliable and reasonably rapid.

The distance between Ashby and MacArthur or MacArthur and 19th is even greater than that between downtown Berkeley and Ashby, so BART effectively serves even fewer people living on either side of Telegraph south of Ashby station along the BRT route (especially if they live east of Telegraph and thus farther from BART) .

And for people south of Oakland, the station spacing is much greater still. Lots of people living within 4 or 5 blocks of East 14th or International Blvd would have to walk 30, 40 minutes or more to get to a BART station.

There's a reason why the buses on the proposed corridor already carry a lot of people. BART, despite claims of BRT opponents, is clearly inconvenient for many people along E. 14th and International Blvd. BART does a good job of serving people whose trip origin and destination are both within a few blocks of a BART, but given the wide spacing of BART stations, there are clearly lots of people whose trip origin and/or destination are too far from a BART station for BART to be useful.

BRT And BART

2008-05-18T17:18:00.000-07:00

Some opponents of AC Transit's BRT proposal have claimed that it is not needed because it parallels BART. Actually, BRT and BART will appeal to totally different markets, because they will be used for different types of trips. AC Transit just made this clear by issuing the following Question and Answer:

1. Why build BRT? Doesn't it just parallel BART?

The BRT route parallels BART in some locations-as do other bus routes. East Bay geography and the existing layout of major roadways contribute to this fact. Long streets converge in major origin-destination areas like downtown Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro.

However, the East Bay BRT Project and BART largely serves very different types of trips. Whereas BART has one and one-half to two miles or more between stations (outside of downtown business districts), BRT will have stations every one-third to at most one- half miles. Unlike BART, station access will be almost entirely by walking and by transferring from other bus routes. Most trips on BRT will be local, relatively short, and to desirable areas near BRT.

This is how the current service in the corridor, the 1R Rapid, operates. BRT is intended to make transit travel faster, more reliable and more attractive. Increasing congestion is causing bus delays and unreliable travel times. Dedicated lanes, prominent stations with convenient boarding of buses will attract more riders. Because buses would be operating in a lighter traffic lane, operating costs per passenger are also projected to decrease. More people will use all forms of transit-BRT, BART and other buses combined.

The 2005 regional profile of commuters produced by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission stated that 67% of people still drive alone to work. Transit carried only 13%. BRT gives residents another option for their travel needs, and it will help to reduce the number of folks who commute by car.

BRT Spreading Rapidly In North America

2008-04-04T11:32:00.000-07:00

From an article in the current Metro Magazine:

"The results of METRO’s BRT 25 survey highlight 30 projects in 25 cities across the U.S., as well as in Canada .... Billions of dollars in new BRT projects are sprouting up all over the country, particularly on the West Coast, which reported 11 new BRTs in the planning stages, totaling approximately $1.8 billion...."

For the complete article, see
http://www.metro-magazine.com/images/brt/top25_2008.pdf

BRT In The Bronx

2008-03-25T12:47:00.000-07:00

New York has just described the design of its first BRT project, which will be in the Bronx and will feature:

Prepayment of fares.
Boarding at front and back doors
Fewer stops
Transit Signal Priority
Terracotta colored bus lanes, with stepped up enforcement to keep cars out

Many similar BRT lines will be implemented through the city if congestion pricing is adopted.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/03/25/nyc-to-launch-bus-rapid-transit-in-the-bronx

Video Of BRT In Bogota

2008-01-28T10:57:00.000-08:00

If you want to see BRT in action on a large scale, check out the video of BRT in Bogota, Colombia at http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/01/28/streetfilm-brt-in-bogota/

Correcting Wolfgang Homburger's Piece about BRT in the Berkeley Daily Planet

2008-01-10T12:08:00.000-08:00

Last fall, Wolfgang Homburger wrote an opinion piece in the Berkeley Daily Planet attacking Bus Rapid Transit. Friends of BRT researched his claims and found that many of them were inaccurate. Unfortunately, the Berkeley Daily Planet failed to publish our response to Wolfgang Homburger, though it was much better researched than most of their opinion pieces - perhaps as a result of their bias against BRT. We are posting our response here.

Correcting Wolfgang Homburger's Opinion Piece About Bus Rapid Transit

by Len Conly and Charles Siegel

Lecturer emeritus Wolf Homburger criticized Bus Rapid Transit in a recent opinion piece in the Daily Planet. After researching his points, Friends of BRT found that many of them are inaccurate.

Homburger claims that bus lanes will be underutilized because a bus will only come every 3.6 to 5 minutes. This is the classic traffic engineer bias that has caused many of the transportation problems that we face today. He is counting vehicles and not people!

This approach is gradually falling out of favor with practicing traffic engineers, who are beginning to realize that the capacity of the system to carry people is most important. The capacity of the two dedicated bus lanes to carry people would be high. In Berkeley, the two bus lanes are projected to carry more than the two car lanes. For example, on Telegraph Avenue just north of Ashby Avenue during the afternoon peak hour, 2,100 are forecast in autos and 2,500 in buses by 2025.

Homburger claims that "loss of a pair of lanes on Telegraph will increase congestion and the anger of residents on parallel streets where backups are already formidable." In reality, the BRT project would actually reduce, not increase, the number of cars entering the neighborhood.

For example, AC Transit analysis forecasts that the number of vehicles traffic crossing a line just north of Ashby Avenue stretching from Sacramento Street to College Avenue during the afternoon peak hour in 2025 would be 15,400 without BRT and 14,900 with BRT - a decrease of 500 cars. In addition, AC Transit could provide traffic calming devices to protect residents of streets near the BRT line.

Furthermore, the University will defer 500 parking spaces called for in the Long Range Development Plan "if AC Transit begins construction on a bus rapid transit route along Telegraph Avenue by 2010," a measure which should help to alleviate traffic in Berkeley in the future.

Homburger claims that, with BRT, traffic demand will exceed capacity at 27 intersections. AC Transit did identify several intersections that would experience significant degradation in performance before implementing mitigation measures, but Homberger does not mention that AC Transit is proposing mitigation measures such as adding additional turn lanes or
adjusting signal timing, which would reduce or eliminate the negative impacts to traffic. After mitigation, the number of intersections experiencing significant degradation in Berkeley would be zero (or one, depending on which alternative is chosen).

Homburger claims that the faster boarding and travel times with BRT are outweighed by longer access time required by wider bus station spacing. However, the number of riders for which this would be the case is very small for AC Transit's BRT proposal.

AC Transit is considering two scenarios for operating the BRT, and both would have convenient access to bus stations.

The "Separate BRT and Local" scenario includes express BRT buses making stops every one-half to two-thirds of a mile as well as local buses making stops about every one-sixth of a mile. Passengers placing a high value of short access time will still be able to ride on local buses under this scenario.

The "Combined BRT and Local" scenario envisions operating only BRT buses stopping on average every one-third of a mile. Under this scenario, the increase in access distance to a bus stop is at most one-sixth of a mile, approximately two city blocks, so overall access time is minimized. AC Transit ridership analysis has found higher ridership for the Combined BRT aand Local scenario because this operating scenario provides a better balance between improving transit travel time, reducing wait times and maintaining easy access.

Homburger claims that the East Bay BRT project has the lowest ridership to investment ratio of any BRT project in the country. This claim is not borne out by the data from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The project can hold its own with any other BRT system and many light rail systems in the country.

The cost per new rider, a measure the FTA has used to rate transit projects, is $12 to $23 for AC Transit's proposed BRT system. This compares favorably with comparable BRT projects in Cleveland, Boston, and Washington, which had a cost per new rider of $38, $33, and $20, respectively (in 2005 dollars).

Experience shows that BRT with dedicated lanes attract far more riders than ordinary bus service. For example, since opening in November 2005, ridership on the Los Angeles Orange Line BRT has increased from 16,000 per day to 21,000 today. Phase I of the Boston Silver Line BRT caused transit ridership to nearly double. On the Miami South Dade Busway average daily boardings increased approximately 130 percent from February 1997 to March 2002.

As Homburger himself says, 42,050 to 49,230 riders are forecast for this BRT corridor in 2025. That is more riders than any of the BRT lines just mentioned, and more riders than the entire Santa Clara Valley light rail system.

At some point in the future of the East Bay, it will become difficult to attract more jobs or housing without high-quality, high-capacity public transportation. The continued automobile dependency advocated by BRT opponents degrades the environment and contradicts the City's stated environmental and public transit goals.

Automobiles are Berkeley’s number one source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 47% of total emissions. Berkeley cannot meet the goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions called for by Measure G, which was supported by more than 80 percent of our voters, without promoting a mode shift from automobiles to alternative transportation. If the federal government acts effectively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will be much more demand for bus service than we now project, and BRT will be even more successful than current projections show.

If the mutual goal of AC Transit, Berkeley and the Bay Area is to gradually move toward a mode shift away from single occupant cars and onto buses, trains and other alternative modes, then BRT must be an important part of this plan. In fact, AC Transit's Bus Rapid Transit project would remove more cars from the road more cost-effectively than any other project in MTC's
Regional Transportation Plan.

Wolf Homburger's article in the Berkeley Daily Planet criticizing Bus Rapid Transit is available at
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article1.cfm?archiveDate=09-28-07&storyID=28109

BRT: Boldly going where no car or train has gone before

2007-12-16T12:02:00.000-08:00

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/mt/archives/week_2004_11_28.html#000428

"While not a reality for most cities, they ought to take a long hard look at bus rapid transit (BRT) and streetcars instead of light rail and buses. BRT and streetcars are much more efficient, cost-effective, quiet - and cooler. Hmm, a BRT streetcar is probably the most efficient of all, but it hasn't quite been invented yet."

Update on City of Berkeley Action on BRT

2007-11-30T04:14:00.000-08:00

To Friends of BRT:

As you’re probably aware, on October 23 the city council passed a resolution that authorizes the City of Berkeley to move forward to analyze how BRT in Berkeley might be configured (Oakland to Dwight, Southside, Bancroft, and Downtown) and make specific recommendations to AC Transit.

Although not explicitly stated, the resolution assumed that money to pay for the work would be available from A.C. Transit.

Following passage of the resolution, staff of the City and A.C. Transit have been negotiating how to pay for the work. The costs may be greater than originally anticipated, and, as a result, it may take longer to secure the necessary funds. The City’s expectation is that transportation consulting contracts currently in place for work on the Southside and Downtown plans can be extended to cover the work on BRT. That is still the plan. The consultants will work closely with City staff (in the Planning and Public Works Departments) and U.C. Berkeley to complete the process and make recommendations to A.C. Transit.

It now appears that the work is likely to be completed by April or May 2008. This timeline will be okay with A.C. Transit.

We’ll keep you up to date as we learn more about how the process is proceeding.

Len Conly and Hank Resnik
Co-Chairs, Friends of BRT

Discussion of Bus Rapid Transit with Enrique Penalosa

2007-11-27T16:08:00.000-08:00

Podcast of a discussion about Bus Rapid Transit with
Enrique Penalosa, former Mayor of Bogota, Colombia,
can be heard at http://tinyurl.com/3da3kk.

Chile Learns that BRT Requires Dedicated Lanes

2007-11-16T12:56:00.000-08:00

Some opponents of BRT in Berkeley have said that the dedicated lanes are not necessary: we could save money by providing similar service without dedicated lanes.

Today's Chronicle has an article about the failure of the new transit system in Santiago, Chile, which proves these people are wrong. Here is the key quotation from that article:

"...despite the strengths of Santiago's subway system - it is modern, fast and clean - the new integrated transportation system ignored key elements of the Bogota and Curitiba systems that have proved essential to their success: dedicated bus lanes and easy ways to buy tickets before boarding buses..."

People do not use these buses because they do not run on time.

The entire Chronicle article is available at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/16/MNCKTBHN9.DTL&hw=santiago&sn=001&sc=1000

Video Of BRT In Beijing

2007-11-11T16:50:00.000-08:00

Luke Mines, who describes himself as "a native son of Berkeley, Born in Alta Bates," now lives in
Beijing, where he does a video blog. The latest video, about transport in Beijing, includes an extended portion about BRT in Beijing and throughout China.

Beijing is building one of the world's biggest BRT networks, and there are twenty cities in China with BRT in various stages of planning and construction.

See his BRT video at
http://www.sexybeijing.tv/new/video.asp?id=59

Oakland Living Blog Supports BRT

2007-10-23T11:30:00.000-07:00

There is an excellent post supporting BRT in the Oakland Living blog:

"the more I read these blogs in support of BRT and the print media’s opposition to BRT, I realized this was too important of an issue not to write about. I’m not going to debunk every myth about BRT ..., but I do want to offer my perspective, as a driver, bus rider, avid walker, and as someone who’s lived on both the Oakland and Berkeley sides of the 1 AC Transit line."

See the complete post at
http://oaklandliving.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/why-im-ready-for-brt-why-berkeley-should-be-too/

Chronicle Article About AC Transit's BRT Plan

2007-10-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

An article in today's San Francisco Chronicle says that, despite the great environmental benefits of BRT, and despite Berkeley's big talk about reducing greenhouse gases, Berkeley may stop this BRT project serving the entire East Bay, because our local NIMBYs are so vocal.

Mary Oram, the one opponent of BRT quoted in the article, is so automobile-dependent and so hostile to transit in general, that she has written in a letter to the Berkeley Daily Planet "what sits under Union Square is a large, relatively low priced parking garage. As a result of this, Union Square is the one part of San Francisco where I am willing to shop."
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=05-07-04&storyID=18818

Here is the Chronicle article.

Bus rapid transit project could hit roadblock in Berkeley
by Carolyn Jones
Sunday, October 14, 2007

Imagine a bus route that's so fast and reliable that it's like light rail without tracks. And 10 times cheaper.

That's what AC Transit is proposing for its busiest route in the East Bay, the 15-mile-long stretch from Bay Fair BART Station in San Leandro to downtown Berkeley.
The $400 million bus rapid transit project would look a lot like light rail, with elevated stops in the middle of the street and dedicated lanes free of cars. Buses would run every 10 minutes and sail through intersections.

But the project may hit a roadblock in Berkeley, where some neighbors and merchants are lobbying furiously against it, saying it would worsen traffic and be the death knell for the beleaguered Telegraph Avenue shopping district.

And if Berkeley rejects the plan, the entire project is imperiled - which leaves some people in town wondering how one of the region's most green-thinking cities could say no to public transit.

"The City of Berkeley would have to be out of its mind to turn down a multi-million-dollar investment in public transit," said Robert Wrenn, a city transportation commissioner and proponent of the rapid bus plan.

"We'd be the complete laughing stock. It would be a great embarrassment to the city."

Residents and city officials in Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro are considering the plan, which AC Transit hopes to start building in 2009 and finish in 2011. After the agency receives feedback on the plan in the coming months, it will make revisions that reflect local needs.

The route, called Intel because the bulk of it runs along International Boulevard and Telegraph Avenue, would run along East 14th Street in San Leandro, cross Oakland and zip through Berkeley along Telegraph.

Buses would run in center lanes, stopping at elevated platforms in the middle of the street. Each stop would be about a half-mile apart so that buses could go faster and bus drivers would have the ability to turn stoplights green using GPS technology. Each stop would have an electronic sign informing riders when the next bus is scheduled to arrive.

Scaled-down versions of bus rapid transit already exist, although without dedicated lanes they're more like glorified express buses that are subject to the same sluggish traffic patterns as cars.

While there are supporters of bus rapid transit in Berkeley, which is striving to meet its voter-approved goals to reduce greenhouse gases, dozens of neighbors and merchants along Telegraph think the transit plan would spell disaster.

They fear it would bring more traffic congestion when a lane of Telegraph is closed to cars, and would result in more high-density housing along the route.

"It's a gigantic waste of money," said Mary Oram, a longtime Berkeley resident who lives south of the UC campus.

"To me, it looks like they're preparing for light rail. Light rail is wonderful if you're in the middle of nowhere, but we already have BART just a few blocks away. It doesn't make any sense to me."

Oram and other opponents said AC Transit buses aren't brimming with passengers through Berkeley, while merchants worry that customers will shop elsewhere, deterred by the traffic or lack of parking if the city decides to eliminate parking along Telegraph to create an additional lane for cars.

Clarence Johnson, an AC Transit spokesman, said the agency is eager to get people out of their cars and into public transit as a way to reduce pollution.

"If we put this dedicated lane in and people continue to drive, then the opponents are probably right," Johnson said. "It will lead to more pollution."

But that has not been the outcome in other nations, he said. Cities in Europe, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere in the United States that have built bus rapid transit systems have reported great success, he said. Business has not been hurt, and it has led to more transit riders and less automobile traffic.

Johnson added that 95 percent of motorists opposed dedicated bike lanes when they were first unveiled, and now the lanes are accepted as part of the streetscape.

Wrenn, a former chair of the Berkeley Planning Commission, said residents will have to make sacrifices for the city to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Taking the bus occasionally should be one of them, he said.

"If we're going to be serious about global warming, people are going to have to drive less and ride transit more, simple as that," he said. "Traffic's going to get worse anyhow. We'd be crazy not to do this."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/14/BA27SNT4N.DTL