Friends of BRT Blog

Planning Commission Moves BRT Forward

2010-02-11T10:56:00.000-08:00

On Wed. Feb 10, the Planning Commission passed the Transportation Commission's recommendations for BRT with minor variations. Next, the issue goes to the City Council. We will let you know when we have the exact date of that meeting.

Transportation Commission Moves BRT Forward

2010-02-05T13:50:00.000-08:00

Berkeley's Transportation Commission moved AC Transit's Bus Rapid Transit project forward yesterday evening.

The consultants presented their latest draft of the BRT Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) with modifications based on the comments that the Transportation Commission and Planning Commission made when they last considered the project. The Transportation Commission supported the major changes, including:

- Study dedicated lanes downtown.

- Study two-way Bancroft rather than the Bancroft/Durant couplet.

- Study both two-way Telegraph and the Telegraph/Dana couplet between Dwight and Bancroft.

The Planning Commission will make its recommendations about the issue next Wednesday, February 10, and then the issue will go to the city council.

Date for Transportation Commission Review of the LPA

2010-01-22T11:13:00.000-08:00

The Berkeley Transportation will meet on Thursday, February 4 2010, to review the staff's latest draft of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Bus Rapid Transit in Berkeley.

The LPA has been modified based on the changes suggested by the Transportation Commission and the Planning Commission at earler meetings.

The Transportation Commission is meeting on the second Thursday, rather than on it usual date of the fourth Thursday, so that the Planning Commission can review its comments at its meeting later this month and then send the LPA to the City Council.

Planning Commission Action on BRT

2010-01-10T17:59:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Len Conly for writing this report.

Berkeley Planning Commission Passes Resolution Recommending Continued Study of Full-Build BRT Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

At its December 9, 2009 meeting the Berkeley Planning Commission (PC) adopted the recommendations of the Transportation Commission (TC) with some additions and modifications and directed the staff to return to the TC and PC early in 2010 for their consideration of the revised plan so that input can be provided on whatever revised LPA comes from the staff as a result of commission and public comments before it is finalized. The finalized LPA recommended by the PC for study by AC Transit will be submitted to the City Council in April. Victoria Eisen of the Planning Commission took the lead in crafting the PC recommendations. The BRT route selected by the city for study by AC Transit in their Final EIR is known as the BRT LPA.

At its November 19, 2009 meeting on the BRT LPA the TC had asked city staff to include a variation of the staff-proposed LPA that would run BRT in both directions on Bancroft Way between Telegraph and Shattuck Avenue, and for mixed flow traffic in the southbound BRT lane on Telegraph.

The staff proposal calls for a Durant – Bancroft Way couplet between Shattuck and Telegraph Avenues that would run BRT in a dedicated lane on Durant Avenue from Shattuck to Telegraph and on Bancroft Way in a dedicated lane in the opposite direction to downtown Berkeley. In the staff LPA the southbound BRT would stop on Telegraph at Durant before turning right onto Telegraph. Only emergency and delivery vehicles would be allowed in the southbound running BRT lane on Telegraph; the northbound lane would run BRT with mixed flow traffic.

The TC had requested that a two way Bancroft variation be studied because the system would have greater “legibility” and convenience for bus riders. (Putting the north and southbound buses on separate streets can be confusing to passengers; a BRT stop at Telegraph and Durant would require bus passengers to walk an extra block from campus to board the southbound BRT bus).

The TC had also requested that the staff BRT proposal include a two-way Durant option. The Southside Plan, which the TC has previously recommended to the City Council, urges the conversion of Durant from one-way to two-way to improve traffic circulation in the Southside. The Planning Commission also included in their resolution a recommendation that a two-way Durant be studied for the LPA.

The Transportation Commission also recommended that auto traffic be allowed in the southbound BRT lane on Telegraph, i.e. the buses would run in “mixed flow” traffic. The Planning Commission agreed.

In response to concerns expressed by merchants on Telegraph, the PC also asked staff to look into a variation of the LPA that would include a Dana – Telegraph couplet for BRT in conjunction with a two-way Bancroft between Shattuck and Dana option that would have a BRT stop at Dana and Bancroft and would run the southbound BRT in a dedicated lane on Dana between Bancroft and Dwight Way. The northbound BRT would run in a dedicated lane from Dwight Way to Bancroft in a dedicated lane in this option. According to staff this option would require removing about 30 parking spaces on Dana.

The PC resolution also adopted the TC recommendation that a study of additional pedestrian/sidewalk space at Telegraph and Bancroft be included in the LPA, as well as a left turn capability to allow northbound Telegraph traffic to turn onto Channing Way to reach the parking garage on Channing.

The PC also adopted TC recommendation that a “full-build” alternative with center-running dedicated BRT lanes along Shattuck be included for study by AC Transit in the LPA. The staff proposal had recommended no changes to the existing bus operations in the downtown along Shattuck. One commissioner pointed out that “If you don’t study it, you can’t build it.”

The Commission also recommended that a discussion of an extension of the BRT line to the north of University on Shattuck and/or west on University from Shattuck to the Amtrak stop at the foot of University be included explicitly in the LPA.

The PC also adopted a TC recommendation that called for the staff to create a matrix defining a single list of criteria which spelled out the costs and benefits for each of the above variations of the LPA. For instance, how will the different variations impact the convenience of students in particular, bus riders in general, and what are the social equity implications of each of the variations.

In response to a public comment from a representative of the UC Graduate Union, the PC recommended that a BRT stop at Ellsworth and Bancroft be studied.

Due to the concern about AC Transit’s financial situation expressed during the public comment period the PC recommended that the operational cost analysis in the staff LPA be expanded to include a detailed discussion of operational funding that AC Transit expects to have available to operate at the service levels discussed in the plan. The PC also recommended that the plan discuss what effect, if any, use of BRT funding will have on operation of other AC Transit routes, and asked to be informed about any guarantees that can be made by AC Transit to the city of Berkeley about minimum service levels.

The PC called for an analysis to be included in the LPA plan for holiday season when Telegraph is closed for six days out of the year for street fairs.

In response to concerns expressed by CIL transportation Education & Outreach Coordinator Chris Mullin about the impacts of the Combined service on disabled riders, the PC also recommended that the staff analyze further the impacts that the Combined BRT service will have on disabled passengers. According to Bonnie Nelson of transportation consultants Nelson/Nygaard, total travel times for all riders will be shorter for the Combined service; 85% of riders will still use their same bus stops; and the others may have to walk another block or two to reach the new stops.

A request was included in the PC recommendation that staff update the Rapid Bus Plus proposal of neighborhood groups to include discussions of a December 9 meeting with staff. A member of the PC pointed out that the Rapid Bus Plus option being proposed – which will require the bus to run in mixed flow traffic - loses the reliability factor that BRT offers.

A complete podcast of this meeting is available at http://berkeleypublictransit.blogspot.com/2009/12/podcast-planning-commission-12909.html. Thanks to Scott Mace for providing this podcast.

BRT As Complete Street

2010-01-08T10:13:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting post in the Future Oakland blog today, saying that BRT will create the longest "complete street" in California - better for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as for buses.

East Bay BRT May Create Longest Complete Street In California

Next week, the City of Oakland will begin a series of public meetings about a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to create a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line crossing the entire city. BRT has been debated for a decade in the East Bay, and its key feature, exclusive bus lanes, has been the source of some consternation among residents in Berkeley and parts of Oakland. But since the City Councils of Berkeley, San Leandro and Oakland voted to move forward with BRT on Telegraph Ave and International Blvd in 2000, BRT has been an abstract concept.

No more. Oakland planners have unveiled a proposal to create a fully-fledged complete street stretching 17 miles across the East Bay, substantially redesigned for pedestrian and bicycle use in addition to bus lanes. Crosswalks, sidewalk bulb-outs, streetlights, and bicycle lanes will complement a world-class transit system, with the potential to transform the heart of the East Bay.

The term “Complete Street” is used to refer to a street that is improved for all modes of transit: motorized, bicycle, and pedestrian.

http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/01/east-bay-brt-could-create-longest-complete-street-in-california/

Transportation Commission Action on BRT

2009-12-17T14:42:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Len Conly for writing this report.

On November 19, 2009 the City of Berkeley took a first step towards the selection of a route – also known as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) - for the Berkeley segment of the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line proposed by AC Transit by holding an informational session and a public hearing on a Draft LPA prepared by Berkeley transportation staff.

The choice of an LPA for BRT in Berkeley is known as the “full-build” option to distinguish it from a “no-build” option which essentially means the preservation of existing 1R bus service between downtown Berkeley and Oakland. There is also an option called “Rapid Bus Plus” which has been proposed by a Berkeley group known as BBTOP which AC Transit will study – after meeting with BBTOP to understand the proposal. A representative of Nelson/Nygaard (consultants to the city on the BRT project) said that - based on what she had seen of the Rapid Bus Plus “option” - there is little to distinguish it from the “no-build” option. The term “Rapid Bus Plus” is not familiar to most transit professionals.

The details of the route chosen by staff can be downloaded from http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=27038.

After public comment and a detailed presentation of the plan by Nelson/Nygaard - and city staff - the commission moved that the staff rewrite the Draft LPA – reformatting it to include a matrix to lay out the criteria that guided the selection of the route.

The Commission also moved to recommend that an alternative be included for study by AC Transit of a 2-way Bancroft option that would include a dedicated westbound BRT lane on Bancroft and a mixed flow eastbound land for BRT. Removal of westbound automobile traffic from Bancroft would necessitate the conversion of Durant to a two way street to increase the capacity for westbound auto traffic from Telegraph to Shattuck, and the study should look at this as well.

While the staff Draft LPA envisions mixed flow traffic for BRT on Shattuck Avenue, the commission also asked that AC Transit study an option for BRT running in dedicated center lanes on Shattuck in the downtown.

The resolution also included a request that a study of additional pedestrian/sidewalk space be included at Telegraph and Bancroft, and a left turn capability onto Channing for the garage.

During the public comment period, support for BRT was expressed by the Sierra Club, TransForm, the Friends of BRT, and others.

The Transportation Commission recommendations were forwarded to the Planning Commission for their December 9, 2009 hearing on the Draft LPA.

A complete podcast of this meeting is available at http://berkeleypublictransit.blogspot.com/2009/11/podcast-transportation-commission_24.html. Thanks to Scott Mace for providing this podcast.

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

BRT DATABASE ONLINE

2007-10-11T21:08:00.000-07:00

A new database is available on BRT and other
innovative bus projects around the world.

"Welcome to our database on innovative bus projects
around the world. This database is available for
your use free of charge. It was made possible by a
generous grant from the Blue Moon Fund.

We have included projects of various types in the
database. Most are not full-featured BRT, but rather
employ certain components of BRT or are planning to
upgrade to full-BRT in the future. For a more
detailed description of full-featured BRT,
please click here."

ENTER THE DATABASE
http://www.gobrt.org/dbfront.html

BRT May Spell Relief

2007-10-09T18:04:00.000-07:00

This editorial supporting Bus Rapid Transit in San Francisco was in the Examiner.

Bus rapid transit may spell relief
The San Francisco Examiner, 2007-10-08

According to city transportation planners, it takes Muni buses approximately 22 minutes to travel the 2-mile length of Van Ness Avenue, one of the most congested thoroughfares in San Francisco. Exasperation would prompt anyone with a pulse to ask whether there's a better way to get up and down Van Ness. Fortunately, by 2011 there should be a better way, and it will be called bus rapid transit.

Although the San Francisco County Transportation Authority hasn't chosen a final proposal for how the new $90 million transportation system would be configured - some proposals include dedicated bus lanes in the center of the Van Ness corridor while others place them on the sides - BRT on Van Ness is bound to help speed up public transit on a street that doubles for U.S. Highway 101 in The City.

There is a sense of urgency for finding ways to speed up public transit in the wake of figures showing on-time performance deteriorating on many of Muni?s most popular lines. While the 49-Van Ness was among the few major lines with significant improvement in on-time performance between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 ? 62.9 percent to 73 percent, respectively ? further progress must be realized before the voters? 1999 Proposition E mandate of 85 percent on-time performance for Muni is realized.

In addition to Van Ness, BRT systems have been proposed for Geary Boulevard, Potrero Avenue and 19th Avenue, and the three latter BRT corridors should prove to be valuable links to an overall system.

The BRT slated for Geary Boulevard has sparked some neighborhood opposition from business owners concerned that parking will be eliminated. The SFCTA has addressed some of those concerns at public meetings, but the agency may have to do a better job of selling its Geary Boulevard plan than it already has. One thing is certain, though: Traffic on Geary Boulevard, whose 38-Geary Muni line boasts the system?s third highest ridership and saw a 71.4 percent on-time performance in fiscal year 2006, is not about to get better any time soon.

The Potrero Avenue BRT, pointed to along with 19th Avenue as likely candidates for BRT systems in Muni?s Short-Range Transit Plan for 2008-2027, would be a welcome leg of a BRT network in The City that could rush through traffic along Potrero Avenue in the eastern Mission and connect to Van Ness Avenue. Muni has projected BRT on Potrero Avenue will cost about $42 million.

As it would over a Potrero Avenue route, BRT proposed for 19th Avenue would permit buses to avoid transit-frustrating commingling with vehicle traffic. In addition to providing relief for the heavily congested 19th Avenue - a corridor linking San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin counties as part of U.S. Highway 1 - BRT might very well save lives on that notoriously deadly thoroughfare by calming traffic with its dedicated lanes and priority signals. And though Muni expects BRT on 19th Avenue to cost $239 million, the bonus to pedestrians would be welcome, indeed.

Time Magazine Backs BRT To Control Global Warming

2007-10-07T16:07:00.000-07:00

Time Magazine has a special issue out on Global Warming. It lists various things people can do to deal with Global Warming. One of them is to ride the bus and it specifically mentions Bus Rapid Transit. If Time Magazine, hardly a radical publication, understands that BRT can help, maybe Berkeley will also understand this.

Here is an excerpt from Time:

The Global Warming Survival Guide
WHAT YOU CAN DO
14. Ride the Bus

With transport accounting for more than 30% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, one of the best ways to reduce them is by riding something many of us haven't tried since the ninth grade: a bus. Public transit saves an estimated 1.4 billion gal. of gas annually, which translates into about 14 million tons of CO2, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

Unfortunately, 88% of all trips in the U.S. are by car. Partly, that's because public transportation is more readily available in big urban areas. One promising alternative is bus rapid transit (BRT), which features extra-long carriers running in dedicated lanes. Buses emit more carbon than trains, but that can be minimized by using hybrid or compressed-natural-gas engines. A study last year by the Breakthrough Technologies Institute found that a BRT system in a medium-size U.S. city could cut emissions by as much as 654,000 tons over 20 years.

Thanks to high gas prices, miles driven per motorist dropped in 2005 for the first time since 1980, according to the Pew Research Center. The U.S. is ready to change. We're just waiting for the bus.

see the complete article.

UC Berkeley Supports AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project

2007-09-11T23:59:00.000-07:00

Emily Marthinsen, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Physical and Environmental Planning at the University of California at Berkeley and Noel Pinto, Director of UC's Office of Parking and Transportation express UC support for AC Transit's East Bay BRT Project in a public comment letter to AC Transit.

"In sum, UC Berkeley continues to support AC Transit's dedicated lane Bus Rapid Transit."

Links to the University of California public comment letter to AC Transit and an Overview of the AC Transit BRT EIR prepared by the UC Physical and Environmental Planning Department, as well as a brief description of the BRT proposal, can be found on the Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley blog published by the Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Sustainability on September 4, 2007 at

http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/blogs/announce/open/2007/09/ac-transit-has-proposed-bus-rapid.html

FBRT's Preferred BRT Alternatives

2007-08-21T11:42:00.000-07:00

At our meeting of August 19, we agreed to support the following as our preferred alternative for AC Transit's BRT project. Our statement chooses among options that the DEIR proposes for Berkeley, and also supports features that apply to the entire project. (At later meetings, we may decide to add items to this list.)

Friends of BRT's Position on BRT Options

Yes to the Build Alternative. Rapid is not good enough. The reason Rapid is not good enough is that we are planning for the future, and the future promises nothing but more congestion. Ultimately the Rapid will be slowed by that congestion and will no longer be an attractive option. Any gaps in the dedicated lanes will degrade reliability of the entire system.

Yes to Combined BRT and local service, with the proviso that stations will be close enough together not to burden current local riders. There should be an added station at Telegraph and Derby.

Yes to the following features:

Dedicated bus lanes for as much of the route as possible
Proof of payment
Transit-signal priority
NextBus signage
Attractive stations and streetscape improvements
Lowest possible emissions produced by buses with the best emissions-reducing technology available (not in the DEIR but a key element in the marketability of this project)

Beyond what is described in the DEIR, also consider:

Sale of tickets at other locations in addition to BRT stations, such as convenience stores and grocery stores.
In addition to this BRT project, we support improvement to bus service on University Ave., possibly including BRT or RapidBus.

Preferred configurations:

Downtown:

Two-way median-running transitway on Shattuck from Bancroft to Center.
One-way north bus service on East Shattuck between Center and University, with only local traffic plus buses on this branch of Shattuck.
One-way south bus service on West Shattuck between University and Center, with two-way traffic on this branch of Shattuck.

Telegraph/Southside:

Two-way traffic on Bancroft to Telegraph, with Bancroft following the "restricted" two-way pattern being studied by city staff and described (partly) in the DEIR
On Telegraph between Dwight and Bancroft, we prefer a two-way transit mall. It would also work to have the Telegraph-Dana couplet with a dedicated bus lane north-bound on Telegraph and south-bound onon Dana; we prefer using a car lane for the bus lane on Dana, without removing parking.
Two-way median-running transitway from Dwight to Berkeley-Oakland border to include at least one new station not described in the DEIR (preferably on Derby St.) to allow for more convenient accessibility.

Photos of BRT in Eugene, OR

2007-08-18T21:22:00.000-07:00

Rob Wrenn has taken a series of photos of the BRT system in Eugene, OR, and put them up on flickr with descriptive text. They are at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8594149@N06/sets/72157601533301325/

East Bay Express Reconsiders BRT

2007-07-25T17:32:00.000-07:00

An earlier post mentioned an unfavorable article about BRT in the East Bay Express. Today, they published several letters to the editor responding to this article. They must have gotten a strong response defending BRT, since they published these letters on their website under the headline:

Readers conclude that we're all wet when it comes to Bus Rapid Transit.

Wave goodbye to Godot
I was pretty stunned by Kathleen Richards' ill-informed piece on Bus Rapid Transit. Richards misses the point: Bus Rapid Transit is all about frequency and reliability. No one's claiming that shaving ten minutes off the trip from Oakland to Berkeley in and of itself will entice new riders. What delivers new riders is not having to wait so long for the bus to arrive in the first place. By Richard's own admission, dedicated bus lanes would help a BRT bus come every three to five minutes during peak periods, down from fifteen minutes for the existing "Rapid." That's huge — not just for myself, but for every other "rider of choice" I know. If dedicated lanes allow buses to sidestep traffic snarls and accidents, and minimize my time waiting for Godot at the bus shelter, they're absolutely worth it.

The environmental benefits are pretty evident as well — to deny them based on a narrowly drawn Environmental Impact Report that didn't even consider the effect of reduced carbon dioxide emissions is intellectually dishonest. Ultimately, BRT is a no-brainer for neighborhoods like Temescal, where I live. While in many ways different, Temescal is similar to other neighborhoods up and down Telegraph and International in that it has an excess of road capacity — a reflection of Highways 24 and 980 stealing its role as an intercity connector decades ago. If we're truly serious about addressing global warming, it's worth giving buses priority access to some of that excess pavement along Telegraph and International — especially when that pavement is far less important to local business success than creating unique, walkable neighborhood districts.

If we're serious about working within the world as it is, it's hard to find a less-intrusive and more cost-effective way to begin addressing climate change than with BRT — dedicated lanes and all.

Robert Hickey, Oakland

Where were the supporters?
Your article about Bus Rapid Transit quotes Willard neighborhood activist Mark Celsor as saying: "You have progressive voices on one side excited about inexpensive housing and increased urban bustle, with established homeowners on the other side concerned that the same factors will have a negative impact on their property values and quality of life."

It is important to understand that these neighborhood activists do not represent all "established homeowners." Neighborhood groups tend to attract people who want to protect their neighborhoods' self-interest and who are not interested in broader regional or environmental issues.

I have owned a home for over twenty years, but I am not a member of a neighborhood group because I am not attracted by their narrow agenda. I am a member of the Sierra Club, which supports AC Transit's plan for Bus Rapid Transit, because I care about the global environment. I think there are many established homeowners in Berkeley who feel this way.

Environmentalists support Bus Rapid Transit because it will reduce automobile dependency and help counter global warming. In addition to the Sierra Club, Friends of BRT and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition actively support this proposal. Why did your article quote several opponents of the plan without quoting any of these supporters?

Charles Siegel, Berkeley

A system to be proud of
I was disappointed that the Express' coverage of Bus Rapid Transit overlooked many of the benefits of AC Transit's proposed project. First, BRT offers the same level of convenience and time savings as light rail for a fraction of the cost. The proposed BRT would significantly reduce the average trip time between Hayward and Berkeley by up to 35 percent. A rider whose daily commute decreases from 45 minutes to 30 minutes gains two and a half hours of extra time per week to spend with family or friends. For the 24,000 passengers who ride buses on this corridor every day, this amounts to a tremendous collective time savings and should not be overlooked as we consider the project.

Next, dedicated bus lanes would improve the reliability of transit in this corridor. Reliability is one of the most important factors for transit users and the best way to attract future users. Dedicated center lanes enable buses to avoid traffic jams, turning cars, and double-parked vehicles. Being able to move smoothly through streets is a major contribution to bus rapid transit's quality of service. Even a "Rapid" bus is only as rapid as the traffic it travels with.

Additionally, with road design enhancements, the streets along the route will continue to serve drivers. Caltrans and the Federal Transportation Administration approval depended on the project delivering this level of service. The BRT project would protect existing neighborhoods as it improves mobility along major travel corridors.

Finally, BRT would prevent the combustion of 1,000 gallons of gasoline every day as riders choose transit over personal vehicles. Considering that each gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, BRT would prevent over 5.2 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year from being released into our atmosphere. With transportation responsible for half of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions, these reductions are significant.
BRT offers the East Bay a new way to make our communities more livable. It combines state of the art technology, reliability, and convenience in a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial transportation option. I urge residents and city leaders to work with AC Transit to create a system we can be proud of.
Carlie Paine, Oakland

Editor's note
Actually, that would be 7.3 million pounds of carbon dioxide.

BRT And Global Warming

2007-07-20T18:21:00.000-07:00

Rob Wrenn reports that:

Last night's Climate Action Workshop hosted by the Transportation Commission went very well. BRT was presented along with implementing the bike plan and some other actions as one thing to do to reduce CO2. And the intern who is working with Timothy Burroughs, Chris Ganson, presented some actual numbers about how much CO2 emissions would be reduced by BRT.

His numbers are:
BRT with diesel buses would reduce CO2 by 2307 tons a year
BRT with zero emissions buses would reduce CO2 by 10,211 tons.

For attributing these numbers, this is what Timothy Burroughs told me: "You are welcome to use the numbers we presented. For giving credit, I would say something like 'initial estimates as presented by the City team working on developing Berkeley's climate action plan' ..."

Here is what Chris Ganson told me about the figures:

The savings are for the whole corridor, which I admit makes applying them in their entirety to measure G potentially misleading. Though, one could argue that the City of Berkeley has the power to hold the whole thing up, making the whole system subject to our jurisdiction. In any case, it would be quite difficult to figure out where to draw the line to look at Berkeley emissions only.

The numbers are calculated from VMT data in the energy section of the BRT EIR, and include life cycle vehicle emissions from both cars and buses. I assumed both buses and autos retain the same fleet/vehicle stock average gas mileage they presently have, and I used standard multipliers to convert gas and diesel into CO2. For the ZEV bus scenario, I assumed the buses had no operational emissions but continued to be responsible for the rest of their life cycle emissions."

Errors About BRT in the East Bay Express

2007-06-29T18:45:00.000-07:00

The last issue of the East Bay Express, a local free newspaper, had a generally unfavorable article about AC Transit's Bus Rapid Transit plan, "Bumps in the Road" by Kathleen Richards.

The author interviewed several opponents of BRT but none of its supporters, so she got a distorted view of the project. Joel Ramos of Transportation and Land Use Coalition provides these responses to her worst errors:

First, Kathleen Richards leaves out the fact that, with dedicated lanes, buses become more reliable, as they no longer have to fight traffic to get back into a lane after pulling over for passengers. They also avoid traffic jams and double parked cars. Currently, lack of reliability is a key concern of community members we spoke to.

Ms. Richards claims: "But a recently released draft Environmental Impact Report suggests that the benefits may not be terribly significant, given the project's cost."

She's really off here: the project is actually very cost-effective, given it is a fraction of the cost of a light rail system that would give equivalent benefits for the same route length. For example, the Third Street Light Rail project is almost double the cost and only a third of the length, and it is wrought with complications.

As far as benefits go, travel time will be reduced on average of 30%. This may not be significant to Ms.Richards, but when you go from an 45 minute commute each day to a 30 minute commute each day (which is what many people do coming from East Oakland), that's 15 minutes each way, twice a day; 30 minutes saved each day, five days a week, is 2 1/2 hours more time for your family or for other activities. Even more important is the new reliability with the dedicated lanes. Most journalists, Berkeley residents and merchants probably have never had to wait for a bus to get between jobs."$400 million for a few seconds"is again hyperbole

Ms. Richards says "It will create complete gridlock" and "the analysis is totally wrong." This is also rhetoric with no rationale.

The DEIR studies show that, with proper traffic mitigations, the route will not degrade to gridlock. The FTA, Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency all approved the studies. They might know a thing or two about keeping traffic flowing. Possibly 5 of the 88 intersections will get worse than they are now, but it won't be gridlock - and traffic would also worsen BRT, because of increased growth.

Ms. Richards writes: "a customer who rides BRT five miles would save less than five minutes over the rapid bus — and BART, which runs roughly the same route, is far faster than either."

What Ms. Richards failed to report, as stated in the DEIR, is the average speeds of buses have declined by 10mph over the past 10 years. Something needs to be done, and this is an affordable way to do it. However, increase in velocity, is not the main intent. Anything faster than 18 mph or so would be unsafe for passengers and everyone else. A bullet train is not needed here. Getting buses out of the way of car traffic, and getting buses into dedicated lanes is the intent.

Again, the dedicated lanes will reduce travel time by an average of 30%, mostly by getting out of traffic, allowing boarding through multiple doors (cutting time that it takes for each passenger to pay the driver), and and implementing new signal technology. Though most trips on the bus are longer than 5 miles, BART is not competitive because most people don't live near a BART station! BART is also too expensive for many people. If BART were accessible and affordable, there would not be 24,000 passengers using the bus on this route now.

Ms. Richards says: "So some question why the agency is pursuing Bus Rapid Transit rather than expanding or enhancing the far cheaper and less-disruptive system already in place."

In fact, the "Rapid" bus system already in place is not very rapid when the buses are sitting in traffic. Currently, it takes 45 minutes to get East Oakland from downtown during rush hour on the "Rapid." With anticipated regional growth, this will only get worse with time.

Ms. Richards says: "As far as any environmental benefits, Bus Rapid Transit is basically a wash."

In fact, 1,000 gallons per day saved, times 365 days per year, is a significant amount of gas that is saved from being burned! And every gallon of gas produces 20lbs of carbon! Even though the DEIR did not cover CO2 reductions, they are eliminating all this carbon saved from warming the environment! AC Transit's comparison in the DEIR was misleading because they compared the gasoline savings on this one corridor with all the gasoline burned in all of Alameda County, making the savings seem small. But it's hardly a wash!

Photos of Busways in France

2007-06-03T17:54:00.000-07:00

Rob Wrenn writes:

I was in France for two weeks in May, in four different cities, Lille, Tours, Paris and Rouen. All had busways/dedicated lanes for some major bus routes; Paris has an extensive network. Rouen has something that is actually described as BRT, while Paris and Tours don't call it that. I took pictures in Paris, Tours and Rouen just to show that what AC is planning with BRT is hardly unusual or untested. What's going on in Paris is amazing with bike lanes, bus lanes, trees and green space being added, while space for cars is reduced.

I also took some pictures of bike lanes, pedestrian streets and other stuff. In addition, there are some older pictures of BRT in Las Vegas, though I think BRT in France is much more relevant to our plans here than Las Vegas' highway-based BRT.

You should be able to view the photos by clicking on the link that follows (or copying and pasting it into your web browser):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8594149@N06/sets/72157600305927405

Click on "View as slideshow" and click the middle of the photo to get the captions included. There is a little "i" for information. Or click on individual photos. If you do that you will have to click on "different sizes" to see a decent sized version of the photo. "Slideshow" is good because photos are full size. You can adjust the speed of the slideshow too by clicking on speeds at the bottom of the page. Let me know if you have problems looking at the photos.

Caveat: I make no claims to being a skilled photographer.

Sierra Club Endorses BRT

2007-06-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

Last week, the Northern Alameda County Group of the Sierra Club voted unanimously to adopt a resolution supporting Bus Rapid Transit, including dedicated transitways and proof of payment.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE NORTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB BAY CHAPTER AT ITS MEETING OF 5/29/07

Whereas:

--The Sierra Club has long sought to reduce the environmental, social, and economic costs associated with overdependence on automobiles for transportation.

--Public transit, walking, and bicycling trips can often substitute for some automobile trips.

--AC Transit has proposed a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project along a corridor including Telegraph Avenue and International Boulevard extending between 15 and 17 miles between Berkeley and San Leandro. The Sierra Club strongly supports the project's goals to: (1) improve transit service and better accommodate existing bus ridership; (2) increase transit ridership by
providing a viable and competitive alternative to private automobile travel; (3) improve and maintain the efficiency of transit service delivery; and (4) support local and regional goals to enhance transit-oriented development.

--UC Berkeley is planning to expand its workforce by approximately 4,000 more employees and 4,000 more students by 2020, and ABAG predicts significant population growth in the Bay Area over the same time frame. As one mitigation of the environmental impact of its projected population growth, UC Berkeley stated in the final EIR of its 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) that it will defer 500 of the 2,300 net new parking spaces proposed in the draft 2020 LRDP until after 2020 if a route is approved and construction begins on the AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit/Telegraph project by January 2010.

--The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's own LRDP projects the addition of 1,000 employees by 2025 who could also use BRT to get to work.

--In its Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, AC Transit predicts that the proposed service, which is to run on dedicated bus lanes (described in the EIR as "transitways") along much of its length, will attract thousands of passengers every week who would otherwise drive.

--The BRT system stations will be designed to attract users making trips on foot within 1/4 mile of stations. Localities can work with AC Transit to locate stops where neighborhood service uses are already located or could be located, thus encouraging more non-automobile trips.

Therefore, be it resolved that:

--The Sierra Club strongly supports AC Transit's overall objective of implementing high level bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements along an approximately 17-mile corridor connecting the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro.

--With regard to key points in the DEIR, the Sierra Club affirms that the fullest possible implementation of the transitways and proof of payment (prepayment of fares that will eliminate the need for drivers to collect fares at each bus stop) will be critically important to the project's success.

--In the interest of best serving the needs of the community and of merchants and neighbors along the proposed BRT route, the Sierra Club will continue to study the DEIR and observe the public review process in order to determine at a later date whether or not the Club should take a position on the specific route choices and alternatives presented in the DEIR.

Notes on the N-Judah Line in San Francisco

2007-06-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

Notes on the N-Judah Line in San Francisco

We already have a transitway in the San Francisco Bay Area very
similar to the BRT transitway proposed for Telegraph Avenue in
Berkeley and Oakland, and it works very well.

I rode on the N-Judah line in San Francisco from the Van Ness station
at Market out to 46th Avenue at noon on Wednesday, May 30. The
N-Judah stops at UCSF Medical Center and ends at Ocean Beach.

For most of the route along Irving St from Irving and 2nd to 9th
Avenue, along 9th Ave from Irving to Judah, and along Judah from 9th
and Judah to 46th Avenue, the tracks occupy the two center lanes and
there is one car lane in each direction. Judah Street is six lanes
wide, as is Irving Street. There is parking on both sides of the
street. At the streetcar stops, there were generally sidewalk height
boarding platforms a lane in width which required the replacement of
the parking lane with a traffic lane to allow cars to pass.

There is no local service on this route.

There are white diamonds painted on the asphalt between the tracks
every so often - the same as the symbols on HOV lanes on the freeway.
I asked the conductor what the diamond symbols meant, but he didn't
know. Cars turning left pulled into the streetcar lane to make the
turn. The conductor said that sometimes during rush hour cars would
get in the way, and that he would like to see better enforcement.

Between 8th and 19th Ave I noticed one sign that said 'Keep off
Trackway' and another one that read 'Keep off Raised Trackway.'
The signs were posted on light poles on the sidewalk.

A white line was painted on the street to the right of the tracks to
demarcate the streetcar lane.

There were ramps for loading wheelchairs about every third or fourth
stop. I spoke to someone in a non-motorized wheelchair who told me
that he was able to roll downhill to most of his destinations. He
would plan ahead to make sure that he got off at a stop that had a
wheelchair ramp and was located uphill from his destination.

One of the stops of this line is at UCSF on Irving between 6th Avenue
and Arguello. Needless to say, there is a wheelchair ramp at this stop.

At most of the stops platforms are sidewalk-height, and to enter the
car required climbing up two steps. At a few of the stops waiting
passengers stood on the street - there was no platform.

Stops were placed every third block. According to Julie Kirschbaum,
Senior Transportation Planner at the San Francisco County
Transportation Authority, stop spacing on the N-Judah is 1000 - 1200 ft.

I rode the line at noon on a weekday, and traffic was light. The
steetcar was half full. I'd taken a previous trip on the N-Judah
on a Saturday afternoon about a month ago, and again,
there were no congestion problems. It would be useful
to know what's it like during a Friday rush hour.

One interesting feature occurs shortly after leaving the West Portal
tunnel entrance (which leads to the underground along Market): the
streetcar stops at the curb when making a turn at Carl and Cole Sts.
Between the exit from the tunnel that goes under Buena Vista Park till
Stanyan (I think) the streetcar is running on a street with one lane
in each direction and a parking lane on either side of the street, so
it is actually running in the traffic. This goes on for two or three
blocks.

I was particularly interested in seeing what kind of development had
taken place along the corridor. There are two, three, and four story
buildings. There was a new-looking 4-story building at the corner of
7th and Irving with shops below and either apartments or condos above.
By and large the neighborhood along the Judah corridor looked old and
well-established. There was no sign of any mega-development. The
buildings are reasonably well-maintained.

While not exactly the same as the Telegraph Corridor, the Judah
corridor may be somewhat representative of what we'll see on Telegraph
Ave if the 'Combined' BRT is built. It looks functionally equivalent
to the 'Combined' BRT proposal for Telegraph, since there is no local
bus service and the stops are three blocks apart.

A delegation from the Willard and LeConte Neighborhood Associations
should take a ride on the N-Judah. I think they would be reassured
about the impacts of a BRT on Telegraph.

Len Conly
510-459-5841

__._,_.___

FBRT Helps Stop Governor's Transit Cutbacks

2007-05-24T10:54:00.000-07:00

From CALPIRG Advocate Emily Rusch:

Yesterday, the Senate Budget Subcommittee that handles transportation (Senator Machado, Senator Kehoe, and Senator Dutton) voted to flat out reject the Governor's $1.3 billion in proposed cuts to public transit agencies on a 2-1 vote. The vote is a huge victory for public transit and we applaud Senator Machado and Senator Kehoe for recognizing the important role of public transit to ease traffic congestion and meet our commitments to reduce global warming pollution.

Thanks go to the Sierra Club, Public Advocate, Friends of BRT, BayRail Alliance, and Ridership for the Masses in Sacramento for joining CALPIRG, TALC, and of course the Transit Association and a few of their members in testifying against the cuts.

Emily Rusch
Advocate
California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG)
369 Broadway, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 9413

Public Hearings for East Bay BRT Project Set

2007-05-18T14:18:00.000-07:00

AC Transit has scheduled public hearings for the East Bay BRT Project.

All public hearings will include an open house, at which time attendees will be able to review exhibits of the different alternatives for the BRT and talk with AC Transit and project staff. Immediately following, there will be a brief presentation and an opportunity for public comment.

Alternatives for consideration may include modification to BRT routes, station locations, and station amenities. The final environmental document will respond to all public comments submitted, and will help select the best alternative for the proposed East Bay BRT Project.

Each hearing will begin at 5:30 pm with the open house session. The presentation and testimony for the hearing will begin at 7:00pm.

1. June 7 MTC MetroCenter Auditorium, Metropolitan Transportation Center (MTC) 101 Eighth St., Oakland

2. June 12 San Leandro Community Library Lecture Hall, 300 Estudillo Avenue (between East 14th Street and Bancroft Avenue) San Leandro, CA 94577

3. June 13 Fruitvale / San Antonio Senior Center Fruitvale Transit Village, 3301 East 12th Street, Suite 201 (Opposite Fruitvale Public Market), Oakland, California 94601

4. June 14 North Berkeley Senior Center 1901 Hearst Avenue (at Martin Luther King, Jr. Way) Berkeley, California 94709

Call For More Federal Funding For BRT

2007-05-15T09:16:00.000-07:00

Rail projects are favored over bus rapid transit projects when it comes to federal funding. But many say the bus systems are cheaper and more effective overall.

"New showcase bus rapid transit systems in Los Angeles; Adelaide, Australia; Bogota, Colombia and other cities have been received enthusiastically by commuters."

"But in Washington, BRT proponents say they are being out-lobbied."

"In a report to Congress in February, the Federal Transit Administration said it planned to issue grants worth $18.2 billion to help build rail projects during fiscal 2008, and about $1.4 billion for BRT projects."

"In addition to the local preference for rail systems, the federal transit agency is hamstrung by congressional earmarks in its budget."

"In a recent transportation spending authorization, Congress wrote in more than 6,000 earmarks, mandating federal support for everything from safety gates at remote rail crossings to elaborate ferry docks and other transportation infrastructure."

"Among rapid transit systems, the congressional earmarks overwhelmingly favored rail, although there were also BRT earmarks, including a $100 million authorization for a system in Birmingham, Ala."

Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 13, 2007
http://www.planetizen.com/node/24462

Draft EIS Due May 4

2007-04-20T09:48:00.000-07:00

The DEIS for AC Transit's BRT project will be released on May 4. This will be followed by a 60-day comment period.

The hearing for Berkeley will be held Thursday June 14 at the North Berkeley Senior Center.

Copies of the EIS will be placed in Main Branch, South Branch, ClaremontBranch and College of Environmental Design libraries. The document will be posted on the AC Transit web site. Free copies on CD will be made available.

Shanghai Adds 300 Kilometers of Bus Lanes

2007-03-30T19:02:00.000-07:00

As the city moves forward with plans to expand its overcrowded underground metro system, Shanghai transit officials are also planning to build a 300km network of bus only lanes to speed travel across the city.

"Shanghai commuters should get speedier rides in the next few years as the city plans to expand its 70-plus kilometers of bus lanes fourfold by 2010, transport officials said yesterday.

They'll also find bus travel slightly cheaper, with new fare discounts set to go into effect this summer.

The construction of more lanes reserved for transit buses is an important step in Shanghai's effort to improve its public transport system, officials said.

Under the plan, bus-lane coverage will be beefed up to 300 kilometers by 2010, including 110 kilometers in the downtown, said Li Wenhui, director of the Shanghai Urban Transport Management Bureau.

Fare policy changes are also in the works to encourage more commuters to ride the bus and reduce pressure on the overcrowded Metro system."

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2007/200703/20070329/article_310766.htm

CALTRANS SUPPORTS BRT

2007-03-29T19:16:00.000-07:00

"Of the declining number of options available, BRT
(Bus Rapid Transit) is emerging as one of the most
attractive investment choices especially since our
State Highway System presents tremendous opportunities
to quickly implement BRT services."

Will Kempton, Caltrans Director

It also appears that Caltrans is committed to a multi-modal
level of service policy.

"It is our policy to transport the maximum number of
people as efficiently and cost effectively
as possible through comprehensive, multimodal
'system management.' "

Caltrans' website for BRT:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Bus_Rapid_Transit.htm.

The BRT Handbook can be downloaded by using this link:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/DOCS_PDFS/BRT/
BRT_Handbook_0307.pdf

Statement of Caltrans Director in BRT Handbook

Bus Rapid Transit: A Handbook for Partners

The Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan envisions a
world- class transportation system available to all of
our State’s residents. California taxpayers have invested
tens of billions of dollars in our transportation system,
and it is crucial that we maximize the usefulness and
utility of these facilities. With new freeways virtually
unaffordable and difficult to implement from an
environmental and community impacts standpoint,
we need to focus on enhancing capacity in the existing
system.

It is our policy to transport the maximum number of
people as efficiently and costeffectively as possible
through comprehensive, multimodal “system management.”
Of the declining number of options available,
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT ) is emerging as one of the most
attractive investment choices especially since our State Highway
System presents tremendous opportunities to quickly implement
BRT services.

With one of the most extensive networks of High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV ) lanes in the world, California already has a
foundation in place to support the development of BRT
operations in our urban areas.

I am committed to fully integrate BRT as an investment
alternative in our system and comprehensive corridor
planning and project development processes. To carry
out this commitment, I have directed Caltrans staff to
work closely with local transit planning and development
entities to innovate, advocate, and assist in the
implementation of BRT projects.

This document provides examples of the flexibility of
BRT and presents successful experiences. In every case,
the objective is to maximize the movement of people,
not just vehicles. BRT offers a potentially cost-effective
means to increase the effectiveness of our highway and s
treet system, and we at the California Department of
Transportation are excited about the opportunities to
advance affordable high quality transit services.

WILL KEMPTON
Director, Caltrans

World's Largest Buses In Shanghai BRT

2007-03-18T17:41:00.000-07:00

With three sections, five doors, and a 300-person capacity, the "world's largest bus" has been unveiled in Shanghai. The new buses will be used for a planned bus rapid transit line in the city.

It takes about 35 steps to walk from the front to the back. It has five doors, 40 seats and can carry 300 people. The top speed is around 80 kilometers per hour.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23275

BRT Videos on YouTube

2007-03-03T23:06:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Bill Vincent of Breakthrough Technologies (www.gobrt.org) for letting us know about these videos. You can find many more videos and comments about BRT at YouTube by going to http://www.youtube.com/ and typing "BRT" in the search box.

Making Things Happen with Bus Rapid Transit, Part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZl1N6bTp_M and

Making Things Happen with Bus Rapid Transit, Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEtf32Bu3Y

You can also link to "Making Things Happen with Bus Rapid Transit"
on Bill Vincent’s YouTube page:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bvincent1

BRT Mexico City - YouTube video in English
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVRriKqXaIs

BRT Mexico City - YouTube video in Spanish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOzZKwO6a6k

Phileas bus rapid transit Eindhoven. Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StN-4xdzhz4

Retrofit Mexico City Part I of II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO0pIWuzv8Q&mode=related&search=

--^----------------------------------------------------------------

Mexico City’s MetroBus One Year Old

2007-02-23T12:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste22/metrobus.html

The Bulletin of the
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP)

Mexico City’s MetroBus Celebrates Its First Birthday
On the first anniversary of Metrobus’s inception, its positive impacts
are becoming evident and may spell more changes ahead.

By Bernardo Baranda

Mexico City’s MetroBus

June marked the one year anniversary of MetroBus, Mexico City’s Bus Rapid Transit system. The occasion was celebrated with a city government event and a photographic exposition titled, “One Year in the Right Direction”.

MetroBus transports an average of 250,000 passengers a day during the week through 36 stations on Insurgentes Avenue, the city’s longest street.

The system had replaced 350 older microbuses with 97 brand new articulated diesel buses that have eliminated over 35,000 tons of greenhouse gases and reduced passenger exposure to tailpipe emissions by 23-59%, according to recent studies by the Mexico City-based Center for Sustainable Transport/EMBARQ. The system has also managed to reduce travel time by an average of 33% as well as decrease accidents by 30%.

Another factor that distinguishes the MetroBus system from others is its flat fare. Passengers now pay $3.50 pesos (about $0.30 USD) per trip regardless of how far they travel, a departure from the previous distance-based system.

These positive changes have not gone unnoticed by passengers. In a poll also fielded by CTS/EMBARQ, MetroBus passengers gave the system an average approval rating of 8.2 out of 10, and 6% of passengers reported having switched from using cars since MetroBus was opened.

Perhaps the project’s most important accomplishment is the discussion it has spurred throughout the city about the need to invest in high quality public transport. Newly elected mayor Marcelo Ebrard has promised that his administration will build ten more MetroBus lines during his term.

Source: CTS/EMBARQ

Interview with Enrique Peñalosa

2007-02-09T08:11:00.000-08:00

Click HERE for an excellent video featuring an interview with Enrique Peñalosa, the visionary former mayor of Bogotá, Colombia. With citywide BRT, bike lanes, and pedestrian streets and plazas, Bogotá has become a model of what cities can accomplish.

FBRT Makes A Good Showing At The Joint Meeting Of The Transportation Commission and DAPAC

2007-02-03T19:31:00.000-08:00

Friends of BRT member Rob Wrenn is also a member of the two groups that met Wednesday, 1/31, to consider transportation plans for Downtown Berkeley. The two groups are the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC) and the Transportation Commission. Here's Rob's report:

I thought the meeting went well. Len Conly and Chuck Siegel spoke during public comment in favor of BRT, as did Steve Geller and Claire Risley. Doug Buckwald was the only person to speak against. He falsely stated that there had been no significant public review of BRT.

Three motions were passed by both the Transportation Commission and DAPAC:

The first motion was to drop consideration of the Oxford-only BRT option. One DAPAC member, Jim Samuels, admitted that he had supported it but said that after hearing everything he understood the objections. Staff said the option was developed in part in response to merchants who thought BRT on Shattuck would be bad for their businesses. Nathan Landau, who is on the Transportation Commission and also works for AC Transit, was effective in
pointing out the limits of this option. The votes on both commissions were close to unanimous.

The second motion said that staff should look at both BRT EIR options: BRT running both ways on Shattuck and the loop that has BRT going northbound on Shattuck and southbound on Oxford.

The third motion called for looking at having traffic run both ways on Shattuck west of Shattuck Square. Mim Hawley raised the issue of allowing buses to continue running east of Shattuck under this option and it passed with the understanding that two-way Shattuck did not preclude buses east of Shattuck Square. I added an amendment that AC should be asked to evaluate
the impact of any changes on buses.

Both the second and third motions also passed by close to unanimous margins.

After the meeting, a DAPAC member told me that Planning Director Dan Marks had said he was surprised by the level of support for BRT.

Friends of BRT is Being Noticed

2007-02-03T07:08:00.000-08:00

The following article is from the Berkeley Daily Planet of Friday, February 2, 2007.

Friends of BRT is making an impression on people. That's a good beginning. We will have even more work to do after the AC Transit EIR for the BRT project is released. That is expected to happen very soon.

ARTICLE FROM DAILY PLANET

A Close Look at Downtown Transportation Options
By Riya Bhattacharjee (02-02-07)

Berkeley’s Transportation Commission joined the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC) on Wednesday to talk about transportation conditions in downtown Berkeley and explore options for transportation improvements.

Transportation consultants for the Downtown Area Plan, the IBI Group, highlighted the challenges and some of the information pertinent to the downtown plan.

Matt Taecker, secretary to DAPAC, along with the IBI Group, explained the role of transportation modeling and how it would be used to understand the impacts of lower- and higher-intensity land use options. Alternative configurations of roadways and transit facilities were also examined.

DAPAC members and transportation commissioners gave their opinions on the options that should be modeled and voted against a plan to run Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Oxford Street.

AC Transit’s proposed BRT project, promising to make Berkeley a “green” city on “the cutting edge of new transportation technologies,” has yet to finalize the routing and design of BRT.

The rapid buses would serve passengers traveling between Bayfair, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown Berkeley along East 14th/International Blvd., and Telegraph Avenue.

“BRT should be an effort to make transit better for people, so that more people use it. It should not be a attempt to keep people out of downtown, like some people want to do to the homeless,” said Transportation Commissioner Rob Wrenn.

DAPAC member Juliet Lamont said that incorporating the use of greenery downtown into the transportation plans was extremely important.

Len Conly, co-chair of Friends of BRT—an organization that was formed in 2005 in order to support AC Transit’s BRT project—spoke in favor of BRT.

“A BRT system, such as that proposed for Telegraph Avenue, uses dedicated lanes, multiple door loading, and off-board payment of fares to make bus travel much faster and more convenient, especially for the disabled. BRT will help reduce congestion, oil consumption, pollution and carbon dioxide emissions,” Conly said.

The boards also voted to approve the option of two-way traffic on the west side of Shattuck Avenue and consider options for the east side of Shattuck.

Taecker told the board members that transportation modeling helped illustrate “how downtown Berkeley’s transportation system functions today, and how it might function in the future.”

He added that staff would present results of the transportation modeling to both boards in April so that DAPAC could have an informed deliberation on “preferred” options in May.

The transportation modeling would be responsible for measuring:

• Quantity and distribution of trips (origins and destinations)

• Mode split of trips (autos, transit, walking and bikes)

• Traffic performance (intersection volume & capacity)

• Other performance issues, including those related to parking.

Taecker told board members that parking-related conditions would be discussed in a future joint meeting. A representative from AC Transit told board members that AC Transit would be releasing its draft EIR for the BRTproject very soon.

Some of the highlights in the study presented by the IBI Group illustrated that downtown Berkeley attracted nearly 10,000 work-related trips daily with downtown residents generating approximately 1,000 work-based daily trips

UC Berkeley generated approximately 30,000 daily trips, of which roughly half were work related. The study also showed that BART accounted for 22,000 of the 40,000 daily transit trips (work and non-work) to and from downtown.

Information on BRT from the FTA

2007-02-03T06:11:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Roy Nakadegawa for alerting us to a wealth of information on BRT available from the Federal Transit Information. Since it would be an unusually long blogger item and a bit difficult to follow, you can find it on the FTA website by clicking HERE.

Included are updates on most of the cities in the U.S. either planning or currently implementing BRT systems.

BRT And Pedestrian Safety

2007-02-02T09:56:00.000-08:00

In response to an article about neighborhood residents complaining about how dangerous it is to cross Telegraph Ave., I wrote the following letter to the editor, which appeared in the Berkeley Daily Planet:

BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Editors, Daily Planet:

Neighborhood residents have complained about the removal of the Telegraph Avenue median strip, which makes it less safe to cross, and Councilmember Worthington has suggested that AC Transit should improve pedestrian safety when it improves the street for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

It is important for residents to understand that a full implementation of BRT, with dedicated bus lanes, will make the street much more safe for pedestrians, for two reasons.

First, it will slow traffic by leaving only one traffic lane in each direction instead of two. There would be no fast lane: all drivers would have to go the same speed as the most prudent drivers.

Second, the curbs around the bus lanes could easily be designed so they are also safe places for crossing pedestrians. There would be two pedestrian refuges at each intersection instead of just one median.

I expect that the safer crossing would also help to revitalize business on Telegraph south of Dwight, as it would become easy for people shopping on one side of the street to cross to the stores on the other side.

In addition to the global benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the regional benefit of providing a more efficient transportation system. Bus Rapid Transit would provide the local benefit of increasing pedestrian safety.

Charles Siegel

S.F. Chronicle Editorial Supports BRT

2007-01-21T17:56:00.000-08:00

From the editorial:

Now that San Francisco has completed the Third Street light-rail line -- after decades of planning and construction -- it is time to focus on the next essential extension of the Municipal Railway.

We refer to the proposed construction of dedicated rapid bus lanes or "corridors" in the middle of two of the city's most densely traveled streets -- Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue. The lanes would provide easier access to a huge swath of San Francisco unserved by rapid transit -- San Francisco's northwest quadrant that stretches from downtown to the Pacific Ocean.

What's at stake is figuring out ways to make mass transit even more appealing than driving a car on clogged city streets. If a bus can't traverse a city faster than a car, then riders will inevitably abandon public transit. "If we lose those people, the city goes backward and the city gets more congested," said Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. "We have to figure out a 21st-century way to make public transit attractive."

...
Rapid bus lanes like these should be a no-brainer. All city departments who need to sign off on them should work to make them happen ....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/EDGC7N6NJC1.DTL

Kudos For Friends Of BRT Blog

2007-01-11T18:06:00.000-08:00

The Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) just sent out their most recent newsletter, which includes their reaction to this blog:

TALC's newest member: Friends of BRT
TALC would like to welcome our newest member group: Friends of BRT. The organization is dedicated to building support for Bus Rapid Transit in Berkeley. Besides a website, they have a great blog with a range of articles and postings on bus rapid transit around the country.

Outstanding video on BRT in Cleveland

2007-01-10T14:50:00.000-08:00

Cleveland is doing great things with BRT. Click HERE to see an excellent video about their new Silver Line. You'll need broadband, and even then it takes a while to download. But it's worth the effort.

Eugene, OR, Uses BRT With Hybrid Buses To Fight Global Warming

2006-12-26T11:39:00.000-08:00

Eugene Oregon Strives to be Carbon Neutral. By Daisuke Wakabayashi
The Birmingham Post, December 26, 2006.

"From an urban forest infused with hiking trails to wetlands housing endangered plants and animals, the natural beauty of Eugene, Oregon, provides a scenic backdrop befitting America's greenest city. Nestled between the Willamette and McKenzie rivers in central Oregon, the city has adopted aggressive environmental policies aimed at conserving energy, using alternative fuels and fostering an industry of green business. Nonetheless, Eugene struggles with many of the same problems facing other growing US cities: urban sprawl, congested roadways and limited public transport... Voters approved a $27.5 million (£14.1 million) bond in November to purchase land to build new parks, upgrade existing ones and expand hiking trails. Green space already accounts for 16 per cent of Eugene's land. Connecting it all will be the city's new rapid transit system of large hybrid-electric buses that run in dedicated lanes."

thanks to:
Climate Crisis Coalition Newsfeed
www.climatecrisiscoalition.org
Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Alan Hoffman of the Mission Group Speaks on BRT

2006-12-14T10:13:00.000-08:00

Alan Hoffman of The Mission Group spoke on Dec 6 about
BRT and transit at "The Forum at Redwood City: A Continuing
Conversation on City Design."

The forum was attended by about fifty people,
including the mayor of Redwood City. Half of the time was
spent in a discussion of research that has been done on what it
would take to get people out of their cars - the other half
covered BRT systems.

Some of the points:

1) Transit will decongest roadways only if transit time is better
than drive time. "Can it get me there quickly without having to wait?"

2) Flexible BRT systems with dedicated busways, multiple door
loading, and pre-payment are essential if transit is going to compete
with the automobile.

3) Transit systems must also have good door-to-door connectivity.
"Will it get me from Point A to Point B?"

4) Headways must be less than 10 minutes. Transfers should be
minimized through system design. The BRT system in Brisbane,
Australia is noteworthy for the way that it has reduced the necessity
for transfers.

5) People must feel good about the experience. Good customer
service, safety, and aesthetics are essential. Bus stops and transit
centers should be well-designed, clean, and transparent. Bus shelters
should not be covered with ads or anything else that prevents a clear
view from the street.

6) Transit systems should be designed with a great deal of
consideration for the preferences of women. Safety is of paramount
importance. Hoffman mentioned one city whose mayor is a woman who
insisted that the bus system be designed so as to be easy to use by a
woman with a baby in a stroller carrying a backpack.

7) One-sixth of the public truly prefer transit. One-sixth will
never use transit. Two-thirds will use transit if it will compete
with the automobile in connectivity, frequency of service, and if
they feel good about the "riding experience".

8) He questioned the value of piecemeal approaches to BRT.

According to Hoffman, San Diego is giving thought to BRT.

He also discussed Brisbane, Australia's BRT system and mentioned that
the cricket stadium in Brisbane, Australia has seating for 30,000
people and no parking lot - see http://www.barmyarmy.com/oz_gi.cfm
for a description of the Brisbane Cricket Ground (there go the
tailgate parties). According to the website, transit tickets are
included in the price of admission to the stadium.

Alan Hoffman is a founding principal of the The Mission Group, San
Diego, CA. A description of The Mission Group can be found at
www.missiongrouponline.com along with several reports on transit
which can be downloaded in pdf format. One of particular interest is
"Smart Growth, Smarter Transit: What Really Increases Transit
Ridership." Many of the points mentioned by Hoffman in his
presentation are covered in this report.

I would recommend that anyone interested in BRT listen to Alan
Hoffman speak if they have the opportunity.

I'm grateful to Joel Ramos of TALC (www.transcoalition.org) for his help with this note and for
letting us know about this event.

Len Conly

Rail Interests Target Bogota and Curitiba

2006-12-09T16:46:00.000-08:00

"As more and more cities are realizing that Bus Rapid Transit can
provide the same high status service that was previously only the
domain of metro rail, and that bike lanes can confer both high status
and a healthy ride to work if good facilities arc provided, there are
signs that certain vested interests are becoming concerned...

If a BRT system is as efficient or more than a metro rail system,
why should we invest eight to ten times more to build a subway,
instead of investing in education, water and sewage supply?"

Sustainable Voices - from Sustainable Transport, Fall 2006

"Sustainable Voices" is a section of Sustainable Transport for
opinion pieces that are intended to foster healthy debate on
controversial issues. The views expressed in the article below are
those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of ITDP.

Rail Interests Target Bogota and Curitiba
by Oscar Edmundo Diaz, ITDP

The success of Bogota's TransMilenio Bus Rapid Transit system and
the impact it has had on other cities considering mass transit
investments has not gone unnoticed. There are powerful lobbying
efforts to build a metro rail system in Bogota and Curitiba, two
cities that have become associated in the public's mind with Bus
Rapid Transit. One country in particular that makes both fine wine
and urban rail equipment recently sponsored a public transit
conference at the World Bank to promote urban transport technology
(read: metro rail systems), and representatives of that same country
were in Mexico earlier in the year spreading misinformation about
Bogota's TransMilenio and Curitiba's URBS systerns. Similar
tensions between metro (rail) interests (a few specific companies and their
national backers) and BRT 'interests' ... are today in
evidence in many major cities from Dakar, Senegal to Jakarta, Indonesia.

...

Until recently, there were several misconceptions in the developing
world that made us think we were more developed, when in fact they
kept us underdeveloped:

* more cars = more developed
* rail~based public transport = more developed than bus-based
* bicycles are for poor people

As more and more cities are realizing that Bus Rapid Transit can
provide the same high status service that was previously only the
domain of metro rail, and that bike lanes can confer both high status
and a healthy ride to work if good facilities arc provided, there are
signs that certain vested interests are becoming concerned.

The world's metro rail system with the best studies is the one that
was never built: Bogota's. In 1998, then-Mayor Enrique Penalosa took
the risk of telling Bogotanos that metro rail was not affordable and
decided to implement a modern, self-sustainable, state-of-the-art bus
rapid transit system called TransMilenio. Today TransMilenio, with
only 82 kilometers out of a total plan of 388 kilometers moves 1.4
million passengers everyday. The corridor with the highest demand,
Avenida Caracas moves 42,000 passengers per hour per direction during
peak hours. This number is not only higher than the capacity of 85%
of the metro systems in the world, but lower than TransMilenio's
maximum capacity of 55,000. It is these facts that have metro rail
interests nervous.

In Bogota, three things happened this year after the Labor Day
weekend. First, TransMilenio opened a new corridor. Opening a new
corridor requires adjustment of the operations in the first days
after the inauguration, because it is difficult to predict exactly
how many passengers will use the new system, and services were not
yet adjusted to the new demand. Secondly, a new map of the system was
released. A new map needs time for people understand how it works,
and some people were confused. Third, on the same day, the old
system's bus companies took advantage of the situation and went on
strike. As a result, many passengers faced long lines, generating bad
publicity. Because of the strike, despite not having optimized its
new operations, TransMilenio moved two million people that day,
though of course it was more crowded that ever. Naturally, armchair
traffic experts and metro rail interests took advantage of the situation.
This was a good opportunity for metro rail promoters to say, "What
Bogota needs is a subway. TransMilenio has reached its capacity."

TransMilenio is not perfect and faces some operational challenges
that are being resolved. In June 2006, ITDP sent a team of the best
BRT operational experts to Bogota whose recommendations are being put
in place.

Curitiba, too, faces a challenge from metro rail interests. Despite
the fact that transit ridership is falling in Curitiba, it is not
falling uniformly, and two corridors have seen growth. One BRT line
is being rebuilt with a passing lane at the stations that will
increase the BRT system's capacity significantly. The same approach
could be taken in another corridor facing capacity constraints, but
enormous investment has already been made in the planning for a
metro rail system, and metro interests are making very attractive
promises to the city of Curitiba. What could be a better public
relations coup than to show that even Curitiba. the mother of BRT,
needed a metro?

It is no wonder that rail interests are concerned. Since 2002, 300
delegations from more than 45 countries have visited Bogota to learn
how to implement it in their countries. Most of these delegations
also visit Curitiba. The delegations are not only from developing
countries. The US also sent a delegation -- from the Federal Transit
Administration and Department of Transportation.In May 2006 they
produced the report "How to Implement Bogota's TransMilenio BRT
system in the United States," available online at:

http://www.nbrti.org/mediafdocuments/Bogota %20Report_FinaI%20Report_May%202006.pdf

For this reason, it is not surprising that rail-oriented promoters
are trying to implement a metro or light rail in Bogota, as evidenced
by the Alstom Company's spate of infomercial-like articles that have
been published in El Tiempo, Colombia's main newspaper, promoting the
benefits of rail-based systems. In several cities, BRT systems have
been chosen over metros, such as in Panama City, Jakarta, and Lima,
among others. Even cities with metro rail systems have chosen to
expand their transportation systems using BRT, like Mexico City and
Santiago de Chile. This means that the rail manufactures have missed
some business opportunities, and what could be better for them than
having metro rail built in Bogota? It would give them justification
for the argument that BRT systems are not the right solution.

So let's compare some numbers to see how good metro rail systems
really are for developing country cities. Today subway line
number 4 is being built in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and the cost per
kilometer is $100 million. The average per-kilometer cost of a
TransMilenio corridor is $15 million - and over half of this
amount is used to build infrastructure for automobiles that run on
either side of the bus corridor. Sao Paulo has busways, but they stop
at the edge of the city center. Even though Curitiba is in Brazil,
Sao Paulo never built a world class, Curitiba-style BRT system
through its city center. Was this to protect the metro rail ridership?

If Bogota had decided to build a subway using the 82 kilometers that
TransMilenio currently uses, an additional investment of $6.9
billion would have been required, equivalent to the construction
(including land acquisition) of 2,150 high-quality schools for 1,000
children each. With the cost of one kilometer of a metro corridor at
$100 million we could build housing solutions for 50,000 people in
Bogota.

TransMilenio's fare is fifty cents, while Madrid's metro is 2.5 times
higher at $1.27. This amount, unlike TransMilenio, doesn't cover
the system's operational costs. The Buenos Aires subway moves only 3%
of the population using a 48.9-kilometer system, while
TransMilenio moves 19% using 82 kilometers. In the developing world
subways move about 5% of the population, 10% at the most. It is so
expensive to build a new line that expansion is very slow. It's
impossible that enough kilometers of a metro rail systern can be
built in five years to move 1.4 million people like TransMilenio does
today_ The average speed of TransMilenio is 26 kilometers per hour,
similar to rail-based systems.

If a BRT system is as efficient or more than a metro rail system, why
should we invest eight to ten times more to build a subway, instead
of investing in education, water and sewage supply?

Submitted by:
Roy Nakadegawa P.E.
rnakadegawa@myfastmail.com
phone: 510-526-5094; fax: 510-526-5094
751 The Alameda Berkeley, CA 94707

LA Times Op-Ed Backs BRT on Wiltshire Blvd.

2006-11-20T13:11:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from the Op-Ed:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's BRT (or "bus rapid transit") experiment on Wilshire and in other parts of the city is like a bus system on steroids. In order to approximate the speed and capacity of a more expensive urban rail system, the Metro Rapid buses exploit their advantage over conventional MTA buses by scheduling more frequent service, fewer stops, coordination with subway station locations and even a device that extends a green light for an approaching bus.

Now, transit planners want to make the Metro Rapid system even more productive by installing a dedicated bus lane along Wilshire and implementing a prepaid fare system, similar to the Valley's Metro Orange Line. These improvements could cut bus travel time between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica by an estimated 20% to less than 50 minutes, making a Wilshire BRT line competitive with a subway.

. . .

Dedicating road space to bus riders makes transit work better for everyone, and it ultimately benefits motorists by reducing the number of cars on the road. Instead of caving into parochial interests, county and city officials should push for dedicated lanes along all of Wilshire Boulevard.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-woo18nov18,0,236036.story?coll=la-home-commentary

Support for BRT from the East Bay Bicycle Coalition

2006-11-05T02:41:00.000-08:00

The following article is reprinted with permission from the October 2006 issue of RideON, the newsletter of the East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

Telegraph Bus Rapid Transit Project

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is proposed to link the East Bay’s most heavily used bus corridor. The project is designed to serve Berkeley,Oakland, and San Leandro by operating from downtown Berkeley to Bayfair BART and Mall along Telegraph Avenue, International Boulevard and East 14th Street.

What is BRT?

BRT is a new and cost-effective way of providing high-quality transit service with buses. The buses operate primarily in bus-only transit lanes with light rail-like service characteristics and station spacing. Traffic signals are modified giving buses priority, helping them move more quickly and reliably. BRT stations are similar to light rail stations, each with a boarding platform, shelter, proof-of-payment ticket validation, ticket vending machines, security features, and real-time vehicle arrival information. BRT is much less expensive than light rail to construct and operate and retains the flexibility to operate in conventional traffic lanes.

BRT and the Community

• Improved Travel Times - Current bus trips from Downtown Oakland to UCB that take 25 to 30 minutes will average 15 to20 minutes.

• Improved Transit Reliability - The ability to operate in bus-only lanes reduces the unpredictability of typical city traffic.

• Increased Transit Usage – Projections show weekday ridership would increase 35%.

• Improved Quality of Life – Automobile dependence leads to residential and commercial corridors typically forsaken bypassing motorists. Improved transit service makes the community more attractive to new development and brings aboutmore opportunities to meet the community’s current housing and retail needs. Bicyclists and BRT

• BRT buses running in bus-only lanes in the center of the roadway reduce the busbike conflicts inherent on traditional bus routes.

• BRT does not create hazardous rail track crossings that cause solo diversion crashes.

• BRT’s increased service frequency and faster travel may attract additional bikeon-bus passengers for medium-distancetrips. Bicyclists traditionally eschew waiting for buses for shorter trips in favor of pedaling. Most current bike-on-bus tripsinvolve transbay travel; longer express bus trips; access to destinations that involve steep climbs; or emergency travel necessitated by inclement weather, bike breakdowns, or situations like getting caught out after dark without lights.

• With BRT stations spaced farther apart, the bicycle becomes relatively better suited than walking for some passengersto access transit.

• How the BRT buses and elevated platforms at stations will accommodate loading bicycles on-board buses or bus racksremains uncertain.

• Not all bicyclists will need to travel with their bike on-board a bus rack. Making a secure bicycle storage option available atall BRT stations, such as the BikeLink eLockers, would help appeal to existing bicyclists and help lure motorists fromcars to convenient bike-bus trips.

• Bicyclists benefit from increased room on popular arterials where parking is removed (no door zone!) and faster implementation of the stalled Telegraph Avenue bike lanes with Federal monies.

• Improved signal interconnection, reduced speeding, better lighting, more shopping opportunities and increased foot trafficwill enhance traffic safety, personal security and the make opportunities to create bicycle-friendly communities on BRTcorridors.

BRT An Election Issue

In the District 7 Berkeley City Council race, BRT has become a major campaign issue. George Beier has launched a well-funded challenge to the incumbent (and bicycle-advocate) Kris Worthington. Beier is President of the Willard Neighborhood Association and has made opposition to BRT (and the Southside Plan) a cornerstone of his campaign.

Public Support for BRT In San Francisco

2006-11-04T18:31:00.000-08:00

This report from Joel Ramos, who is organizing for BRT on behalf of Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC):

I was at the Geary BRT workshop last night, and all 50 or so people in attendance seemed to unanimously support the project. The only issue some had was that they preferred an LRT. However, after several explanations from the MTA, folks finally understood that it would be too expensive, and would take too long.

In the interest of time, some even advocated that some of the alternatives be dropped (such as curbside BRT and simply enhancing current service), as they simply weren't nearly as effective as center lane BRT.

Probably the best part of the event was a 2 minute long computer animation that portrayed a BRT vehicle traveling down Geary Blvd, amongst two-way traffic, while stopping at bus stations along the route. The whole animation was projected from a "bird's-eye" view, that is, from an in-flight perspective (above and at an angle).

It was rather inspiring!

Buses and Bikes in Paris

2006-11-03T11:04:00.000-08:00

by Hank Resnik

As many of you know, Paris is my second home. A major reason for this is that Paris is truly a transit-oriented city. All the neighborhoods cluster around transportation nodes, most often Metro stations.

In recent years the bus system in Paris has improved greatly. Most impressive has been the newly implemented citywide network of bus-only lanes. Very close to the apartment we're renting, for example, is a major street. Formerly it was four lanes with two lanes of traffic in each direction. In the last year it was divided by a wide concrete median into two two-lane streets. One of the two-lane streets is for private vehicles. The other is primarily for buses.

The citywide network of bus-only lanes enables buses to move quickly and without the obstruction of other traffic, and it makes bus travel a lot faster and more convenient than traveling by car. It seems odd that anyone would prefer a car to any other mode of transit in Paris, in fact. At most times of day private vehicles move slowly and often encounter gridlock.

The bus lanes are shared with two other kinds of vehicles: taxis and bicycles. My bike is still my primary mode of transportation in Paris, and I find the bus/bike lanes both safe and convenient. Paris is becoming more and more bike-friendly, part of a deliberate program on the part of the mayor and city administration to reduce private automobile use, promote transit, and provide safe and convenient opportunities for bicyclists.

Paris is hardly unique in Europe, where the private automobile is always considered just one option for getting around, not the only option. Combined with all its other attractions, however, Paris is getting better all the time.

Wheelchairs and BRT

2006-10-30T18:54:00.000-08:00

According to Jim Cunradi, Bus Rapid Transit Project Manager
for AC Transit, riding on BRT in a wheelchair would be similar
to the experience that it is today.

There would be less side-to-side motion and the overall ride
would be more comfortable. Securing wheelchairs inside the
bus would be the same as it is today.

The experience of boarding the bus would be much improved.
A BRT station is, with few exceptions, situated in the middle
of the street adjacent to the bus lanes. Unlike a conventional
bus which has to pull into the curb, the BRT bus pulls
straight into the station, very close to the boarding platform.
This means that the gap between the bus and the platform can
be much less than the gap that can be achieved by pulling into
conventional bus stops. The platform would be as level with
the bus as possible - 10.5 inches without precision docking
and 13 inches with precision docking.

In the first case, the wheelchair ramp would still need to be
deployed but the angle of the ramp would be less than when
it is deployed onto the sidewalk. If precision docking becomes
a reality, there would be no need to deploy the ramp for a wheelchair.

Precision docking uses technology, either mechanical or electronic,
to guide the bus to the platform. Tolerances of less than one inch
are easily achievable.

BRT Costs Much Less to Build Than LRT

2006-10-30T18:19:00.000-08:00

The [Orange BRT] line, which debuted on Oct. 29, 2005, has averaged about 21,000 riders each weekday - more than the MTA's Gold Line, a light-rail system that cost more than triple that of the $330 million, 14-mile-long busway.

Orange Line's success touted
Monday's crash downplayed
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
LA Daily News
10/24/2006

NORTH HOLLYWOOD - As throngs of morning commuters spilled from the bus, officials on Tuesday marked the upcoming anniversary of the Orange Line, touting the success of the year-old busway and downplaying Monday's crash that injured 17 commuters.

"This is the safest bus on the system," said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a MTA board member and early Orange Line proponent. "We are looking to a better year that is better and safer."

The line, which debuted on Oct. 29, 2005, has averaged about 21,000 riders each weekday - more than the MTA's Gold Line, a light-rail system that cost more than triple that of the $330 million, 14-mile-long busway.

Just as important, officials said, is the busway's safety record. It has recorded fewer collisions than any other on the bus system and better than the light-rail Blue Line.

"To me, it's safe. All the years I have been riding a bus, I have never had a problem," said Ruth Tabudlo, a 54-year-old security guard who takes the line to arrive at her job in Van Nuys.

Officials believed Monday's crash was caused by a delivery truck that plowed into the Orange Line at Woodman Avenue. The still unidentified driver admitted running a red light, Yaroslavsky said.

"We have to convey to commuters in the San Fernando Valley that red means stop," said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Los Angeles, during the morning conference commemorating the upcoming anniversary.

The MTA has logged 30 crashes since the Orange Line opened. Ten of those collisions resulted in injuries, most minor. All were caused by drivers running red lights.

rachel.uranga@dailynews.com

New York Announces Five BRT Lines

2006-10-26T09:44:00.000-07:00

After two and a half years of study, the New York City Department of Transportation just announced the five routes that will be used in the its first Bus Rapid Transit program - one route in each borough.

Two of the routes will be completed in Fall 2007, and the others will be completed in 2008.

Bus lanes will be painted a different color from general traffic lanes. Buses will have cameras to photograph trucks and cars blocking the bus lanes, so they can be ticketed. On some routes, buses will communicate with the computer system that controls traffic lights, and the timing of the lights will be changed to accommodate the buses. At some bus stops, passengers will pay their fare to get into the bus stations rather than paying when they enter the bus, so they can board more quickly.

The bus lanes will be marked but will not be physically separated from other traffic lanes, as they are in most BRT systems. The Department of Transporation says it can keep these lanes clear by strict enforcement of the laws against blocking them, but this remains to be seen.

This system probably should be upgraded in the future so that passengers pay at all bus stops before boarding, so that all buses are connected with the computer system that controls traffic lights, and so that the bus lanes are physically separated from other traffic lanes. But the current plans are an excellent first step that can get BRT started quickly on many lines.

For more information, see http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/10/24/dot-announces-five-bus-rapid-transit-corridors/
and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/nyregion/24bus.html

Van Ness bus-only lanes get first airing

2006-10-22T23:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.examiner.com/printa-349325~Van_Ness_
bus-only_lanes_get_first_airing.html

Examiner.com

Van Ness bus-only lanes get first airing

Sajid Farooq, The Examiner
Oct 18, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - Plan would set aside space for Muni, provide real-time arrival information for riders

City residents got their first look Tuesday night at plans for a rapid bus service that could reduce travel time up and down Van Ness Avenue and could be in effect by 2010.

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority is looking at creating a lane solely for buses, giving them priority at traffic signals and using real-time information technology at bus stops to tell riders when the next bus is arriving. The measures on one of The City’s most traveled thoroughfares would significantly speed up travel time, according to the authority, by allowing buses to travel unimpeded by cars or double-parked vehicles. A September poll done by David Binder showed 55 percent of city residents supported the idea of rapid bus service.

The authority is finishing a study, which is expected to be completed by December after a series of community meetings, to examine the feasibility of implementing the bus rapid transit system, according to the Transportation Authority. On Tuesday, the Transportation Authority held a public workshop soliciting public input and displaying renderings of the new system.

Advocates of the setup say buses would run twice as fast because they would not be slowed down by vehicle traffic, and more riders would use the Muni service because of the speed.

“As far as we know, based on years of looking at the need and looking at other transit systems, the most important thing Muni needs to do to reduce costs and win back riders is implement bus rapid transit or similar measures on all of its core lines,” said Gabriel Metcalf, the executive director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.

There are several different ways the express lane could be set up. One option would be to convert the center lanes to bus lanes and either separate them from traffic with landscaping or a curb that cars could not go over. Another option would be to convert the far right lanes on each side of traffic to bus-only lanes.

The authority said the service could cause the loss of some street parking and increased traffic congestion, though they say they believe the congestion increase would be minimal. If the plan is ultimately approved, no portion of Van Ness Avenue would be under construction for more than three months.

Metcalf said the system is a cost-effective way of providing safe and reliable transit across The City instead of building a subway system. The Transportation Authority estimates that the cost would range between $61 million and $65 million, depending on what option is chosen. About $20 million has been allocated from voter-approved transportation bond funds, while the rest would come from federal grants and other sources. If the authority’s board approves the plan in December, an environmental impact review would begin in the fall with the service potentially running by 2010.

What is Bus Rapid Transit?

* BRT is a system that combines features from rail systems with the flexibility and cost savings of using over-the-road vehicles.

* Vehicles usually operate in their own sealed-off lanes that speed up service and maximize their use.

* BRT services tend to run twice as fast as normal bus lines because they are not slowed down by vehicle traffic.

* The vehicles used are normal buses and no tracks or rails are needed.

* BRT service can be set up on normal streets by simply changing the way lanes are set up.

Source: BRT Policy Center, SPUR and San Francisco Transportation Authority

Transport Innovator

2006-10-20T11:46:00.000-07:00

The Sept/Oct issue of Transport Innovator, a round up of news for policymakers and professionals interested in innovative, cost-effective solutions to today's transportation problems, can be read online at http://www.gobrt.org/TransportInnovatorVolume2No.5.pdf

This newsletter is presented by the Breakthrough Technologies Institute, a Washington DC-based non-profit that serves as a voice for technologies and public policy. Our program areas include hydrogen fuel cells, public transportation and diesel emissions. To learn more about our transportation projects, please visit www.gobrt.org.

Free subscriptions to Transport Innovator are also available at www.gobrt.org.

The publishers hope you find Transport Innovator useful and informative. Please let them know what you think. Suggestions about content, focus, and any other issues would be greatly appreciated. Please email comments to:

In this issue:

In the Spotlight

Two BRT Seminars in Seattle
Bus Rapid Transit and Innovative Bus Service:
TransMilenio integrates Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism
Officials approve extension of LA’s successful Orange Line busway
King County “Transit Now” plan goes to voters
Silver Streak rapid bus to launch service to Los Angeles in 2007
Snohomish County, Washington’s rapid bus line receives funding
Proposed Colorado BRT line receives funding
Survey finds San Franciscans support creation of BRT network
Chile’s Transantiago system places second large bus order
GEF to fund South African BRT under FIFA World Cup “Green Goal”
India’s government encouraging implementation of BRT in major cities
Alternative Fuels:
Alternative fuels the focus of September conference in Australia
Cities in Europe, Canada Partner to Purchase Hydrogen Buses
One in five Berlin buses to be hydrogen-powered by 2009
Fuel cell hybrid “midi-buses” for German cities
Brazilian fuel cell bus demonstrations planned for 2007
Twin Cities plans “greener” bus fleet
Hybrid-electric bus performance disappoints California transit agency
Ford offering hydrogen-powered ICE shuttle bus
Two European bus manufacturers adopt hybrid technology
29% of recent New Flyer bus orders for clean fuel vehicles
Climate Change:
California sues automakers over CO2 tailpipe emissions
Smart Australia offers Carbon Zero program to offset driver emissions
Transportation Policy and Studies:
Stockholm voters approve HOT lanes plan
Study predicts growth in bus demand
UN urges African cities to pursue funding for sustainable transport
Miscellaneous:
New York City Transit offers podcasts

Chronicle Article On Mexico City BRT

2006-10-20T09:51:00.000-07:00

The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article named "Look out, BART -- here comes BRT." Here are a few excerpts:

Mexico City rolls out new kind of mass transit. Commuters crowding onto jumbo buses that operate like an above-ground subway.

Costing some $30 million, the Metrobus is the gridlocked capital's ambitious plan to streamline traffic, rid streets of smoke-belching buses and entice drivers to ride modern, comfortable buses that ply express lanes.

The pilot line, which rolled out in mid-June, makes 36 stops along the congested Avenida Insurgentes, the city's main north-south thoroughfare, which stretches 121/2 miles in each direction. Each of the 80 double-length Volvo buses has a capacity of 160 passengers.

Riders run a "smart card" through a turnstile to enter a raised, steel- mesh-encased station along Avenida Insurgentes' median and then enter the bus through four doors, like a subway. The system attracted 4.5 million passengers in its first three weeks, and it is currently carrying as many as 250,000 passengers daily, according to Adriana Lobo, director of the nonprofit Center for Sustainable Transport, a nongovernmental organization.

The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system is designed to offer the low price of a bus -- 33 cents a ride in Mexico City -- and the speed of a light rail system.

The first BRT was rolled out in 1974 in the Brazilian city of Curitiba, where more than 70 percent of the population use the system. Bogota followed with its own version in 2000 that currently serves about 750,000 commuters daily.

Urban planners are slowly looking at BRT as a cheaper alternative to subway and light rail.

Embarq, an environmental organization based in Washington and affiliated with the World Resources Institute, says dozens of similar systems are being considered around the world. Las Vegas recently started a BRT system, and Seattle and Houston are among several cities studying the rapid buses.

In San Francisco, BRT is being planned for Geary Boulevard and Van Ness Avenue, according to Aaron Golub of the University of California Transportation Center, a statewide program. "I see more and more cities looking to BRTs and scrapping their light-rail and subway plans," he said.

Metrobus officials say the system's success depends on performance. "We can't have riders wondering where's the bus -- that's half the battle," said Calderón. "We're just making sure that if a bus is set to leave at 5:03 p.m., then it leaves at 5:03 p.m."

Most important, Metrobus appears to be attracting a new type of commuter. "I'm spotting a bigger mix of people, executive types who never rode the old microbuses," said Clara Salazar, an urban studies professor at Mexico City's Colegio de Mexico. "Here, mass transit is considered a poor man's ride."

Leonardo Ortiz, 40, a cell-phone-company executive, is one such commuter. This "makes the city more livable," he said. "The old jitneys were savage. This takes us to a higher level."

For the entire article, see
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/MNGJDE4AEF1.DTL

"Fast, frequent, fabulous' transit ready to roll in S.F.

2006-10-02T00:00:00.000-07:00

"With this as background, one of the most interesting stories in transportation over the last 10 years has been the migration of a new form of public transit from South America, to Europe, to Canada, and finally to the United States. It goes by the name of Bus Rapid Transit."

Guest opinion

'Fast, frequent, fabulous' transit ready to roll in S.F.

San Francisco Business Times - April 7, 2006
by Gabriel Metaclf

It's starting to seem normal for transportation projects to cost billions of dollars.

From the projects that make sense (extending Caltrain to a downtown Transbay Terminal) to the ones that don't (extending BART to San Jose) to the ones that are simply necessary (the new Bay Bridge), we all expect that nothing can be done for less than a billion.

These mega-projects are popular with the voters, but that doesn't mean they are opening up their wallets to pay for them. Instead, transportation officials scrape together money from dozens of sources to accommodate our still-growing need to get around.

The bus arrives

With this as background, one of the most interesting stories in transportation over the last 10 years has been the migration of a new form of public transit from South America, to Europe, to Canada, and finally to the United States. It goes by the name of Bus Rapid Transit.

The idea is simply this: to run commuter-quality buses on dedicated busways instead of building rail and tunneling underground, designing the bus-ways to approximate the speed, smoothness, and attractiveness of rail. This means getting buses out of traffic and into their own lanes, creating attractive "stations" instead of miserly "bus stops," having people purchase tickets at the station instead of sticking dollar bills in as they board, making fewer stops along the routes, and giving the buses automatic signal preemption at intersections. Los Angeles describes its new bus rapid transit system with the slogan, "fast, frequent, fabulous."

The promise of Bus Rapid Transit is that a city like San Francisco can establish a whole network of super-speedy transit that can get people anywhere they need, at a fraction of the cost of building rail. Bus rapid transit is 50 percent to 80 percent cheaper to build than other options such as light rail.

San Francisco is in the early stages of building this rapid transit network. The completion of the network is the key to reducing Muni's operating costs and attracting more middle-class riders to transit. And this, in turn, is the key to enabling continued economic growth.

Transportation infrastructure is quickly becoming the major constraint to growth, especially in the greater downtown area. Transit lines that bring workers to downtown must expand their capacity if new jobs are going to be created. For the rest of the city, the rapid transit network is more of a quality of life and environmental issue.

The first, and perhaps most important, segment of the citywide Bus Rapid Transit network is the Geary line, which carries around 50,000 passengers each day, second only to BART for the number of people carried on any transit corridor in the Bay Area. It will cost about $200 million to build the Geary segment, a bargain price. The design will be ready to convert to rail as ridership levels grow and funding becomes available.

Sweet scenario

The plan for Bus Rapid Transit on Geary is following a scenario familiar to every transit improvement in the world: Some of the local merchants, who will ultimately benefit the most, are opposed. The great citywide interest in getting the project built is harder to mobilize. But the project is so beneficial that all reasonable people know it will be completed, sooner or later.

Picture Geary Boulevard becoming the new hot shopping street because hundreds of thousands of new people can finally get there quickly, easily, and comfortably. Neighborhoods across the city demand that they are the next to be served by Bus Rapid Transit. Muni hires drivers and buys new vehicles to accommodate the surging ridership. We have a transportation system we can be proud of.

All aboard!

Gabriel Metcalf is executive director of SPUR, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.

Send us your comments More Latest News

NOTES ON GEARY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

2006-10-01T23:20:00.000-07:00

The Geary Citizens Advisory Committee meets to discuss the proposed construction of a BRT line on Geary Boulevard in San Francisco. The meetings take place at 100 Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco, the headquarters of AAA of Northern California.

There were about 12 members of the Advisory Committee in attendance, along with the Executive Director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) and Julie Kirschbaum, a Senior Transportation Planner with SFCTA. One member of the committee was openly opposed to BRT - I believe that he made a motion that the Chair be removed because he was not neutral on the issue of BRT, but the motion died for lack of a second. A few seemed skeptical.

Several members of the committee expressed concerned about current problems with MUNI. They were worried that MUNI's poor performance was going to weaken public support for any new transportation initiatives such as BRT. (See "Year-end report tells troubling tale for Muni August 16, 2006" at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/BAG3FKJDJM1.DTL)

During the public comment period, someone from a group called Committee to Save Geary Blvd spoke in opposition to any changes on Geary Boulevard.

The staff presented data on delay times experienced by autos at different intersections along Geary at present and what they were projected to be with Center Lane BRT. They also screened a video simulation of what Center Lane BRT would look like in operation and mentioned the fact that there was an engineering problem with Center Lane BRT at the intersection of Geary and Masonic which had to do with the time it would take pedestrians to cross Geary.

Aside from the Geary and Masonic intersection, no other serious obstacles seemed to exist. With a dedicated lane BRT system in place, riders on the Geary line will experience significantly reduced travel times.

During the public comment period I introduced myself as the Co-Chair of an East Bay group called Friends of BRT which was supporting the introduction of BRT in the East Bay. I gave a copy of the Friends of BRT brochure to Ms. Kirschbaum and to a member of the Advisory Committee named Brian Larkin. I left copies of the brochure on an information table at the entrance to the meeting room. In particular I brought up the role that BRT can play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from transportation and mentioned the role that transportation is playing in causing global warming.

Roy Nakadegawa, former member of both the BART and AC Transit Board of Directors, attended the meeting. During a conversation after the meeting with the Executive Director of SFCTA, he mentioned the fact that he had met with someone involved with BRT in Ottawa who had told him that due to the increased speed of service with the BRT that operating costs were reduced such that the busway would pay for itself in 20 years. If I understand the point correctly, the fact that the buses are moving faster means that you need fewer of them. I am going to interview Roy on this point and post a note expanding on it.

After the meeting, a member of the committee told me that she had never thought about the role that BRT could play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. She thanked me for making that connection for her.

Len Conly

BRT IN DOWNTOWN BERKELEY DISCUSSED ON KQED’S FORUM

2006-09-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

Matt Taecker, principal city planner for Berkeley, was interviewed about plans for downtown Berkeley on KQED’s Forum with Michael Krasny on Sept. 27, 2006.

Listen to the interview (Downtown Evolutions) at:

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R609270900

Matt Taecker makes several references to BRT and transit:

“BRT, which is a lot like light rail, is projected to be
coming to downtown Berkeley.”

“Now the fact that the Hotel/Conference Center,
University Art Museum, and Bus Rapid Transit are
coming...”

"Transit is going to play a very key role, with Bus Rapid Transit and the BART station..."

“Put incentives for Eco-Pass in place.”

"One of the best ways to save energy in the future and to encourage walking and alternatives to the car is to capitalize on transit..."

New Survey Finds San Francisco Backs BRT

2006-09-23T20:56:00.000-07:00

According to a front-page story in yesterday's San Francisco Examiner, an overwhelming majority of San Francisco voters favor creating a Bus Rapid Transit network, with dedicated bus lanes, throughout the city.

Though there is vocal opposition to BRT in San Francisco from residents who claim it will worsen traffic congestion, a recent poll found that the great majority of San Francisco voters back BRT.

In Berkeley, also, the opponents of BRT make lots of noise. But I suspect that, if we had a survey here, it would find that they are a small minority, just as they are in San Francisco.

Here are some excerpts from the Examiner article:

"A new survey of San Francisco voters shows support for the idea of rapid-transit bus-only lanes on two of The City’s busiest corridors.

Supporters of the proposed bus lines, along Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard, say the transit-only lanes would speed Muni along since the buses wouldn’t get stalled behind other vehicles or stopped at traffic lights."

"The survey, conducted by David Binder Research on behalf of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a public policy organization, revealed that 78 percent of local voters polled supported the creation of a BRT network in The City.

Even when asked specifically if there was interest in a BRT line on Geary that would 'use center lanes for a dedicated bus-way instead of for car traffic,' 46 percent of those surveyed 'strongly' supported the public transportation proposal, with another 19 percent indicating they 'somewhat' support plan. Less than one-fourth, or 22 percent, opposed the plan, and another 13 percent said they 'didn’t know.'"

"Cities around the country are starting to use BRT lines to increase transit use on busy traffic corridors, American Public Transportation Association official David Hull said. Although initially traffic congestion could increase, he said, eventually it would decrease as more people opted for the convenience of a faster bus line, he said."

The entire article is available at:
http://www.examiner.com/a-303409~Poll_finds_S_F__voters_back_rapid_transit_bus_lanes.html

Geary Corridor BRT Study - Official Website

2006-08-23T23:03:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the official website for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study, which is a multi-agency effort being led by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), in partnership with the Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni/DPT), the Planning Department, the Department of Public Works, and Golden Gate Transit. The Study is evaluating the benefits and impacts of potential bus rapid transit designs on Geary, the heaviest used transit corridor in the northern part of San Francisco. Almost 50,000 daily transit riders rely on Geary bus service which is frequently slow, unreliable and crowded. Improvements, such as dedicated bus lanes and high-quality bus shelters, are being considered to improve service for existing riders, attract new transit riders, and prevent increased auto congestion caused by existing riders switching to driving.

http://www.sfcta.org/geary.htm

Transport Innovator Features BRT

2006-08-23T19:02:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to the latest issue of Transport Innovator. It has a big spread on BRT, including an article on Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue corridor BRT which has the same design as the Telegraph Avenue BRT and many of the same issues.

http://www.gobrt.org/TransportInnovatorJuly 2006.pdf

BRT News Line Magazine

2006-08-23T18:59:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to the BRT News Line magazine. It is published quarterly and is dedicated to BRT issues. Once you open the newsletter, there are links to subscribe to the electronic version.

http://www.calstart.org/programs/brt/archives/BrtNewslaneVol5No2.pdf

Time Saved By East Bay BRT

2006-08-21T19:45:00.000-07:00

How much time would the BRT plan that we are backing save for bus riders?

AC Transit's Major Investment Study says: "Enhanced Bus would provide 10 to 15 percent better travel time than existing AC Transit bus services. BRT would provide an additional 15 to 25% travel time improvement over Enhanced Bus. LRT [light rail] would provide only a 2 to 10 percent improvement over BRT." (page 27.)

Overall, BRT would reduce travel time by 25% to 35%.

Thanks to Rob Wrenn for providing these figures.

BRT Means More Business For Downtown Berkeley

2006-08-20T13:17:00.001-07:00

According to a survey of downtown Berkeley shoppers directed by Elizabeth Deakin of the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies, more shoppers come downtown by transit than by car, 28% by transit compared with 20% by car:

"Over half stated that their shopping trip originated from home, while 1/5 each came from work or school. Consistent with these responses, 42% of all shoppers were walking to their shopping destination. 28% took transit to downtown Berkeley, and 20% had driven and parked downtown, with about 2/3 parking on-street."

It seems clear that when BRT attracts the 10,000 new transit riders that AC Transit predicts, that will mean more customers coming downtown.

This survey is available at http://bclu.org/Berkeley_Parking_and_Land_Development.pdf.

Orange Line in LA - potential "revolution"

2006-08-19T23:28:00.000-07:00

Orange Line opens Oct. 29, and Supervisor Yaroslavsky hails it as a potential "revolution."
Metro Investment Report
October, 2005

http://www.metroinvestmentreport.com/mir/?module=displaystory
&story_id=305&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;edition_id=52&format=html

"We went down there (Curitiba, Brazil), and within 15 minutes of seeing their bus system – which is a fixed-guideway system with an exclusive busway for their main lines – all of us looked at it and said, “This makes sense. This could work in Los Angeles.” I remember pacing off the width of the street, the width of the busway, applying it to Van Nuys Boulevard, La Brea Avenue, certainly the Southern Pacific right-of-way, and I said, “this would work back home.” Before I saw it with my own eyes, I never understood how functional and pleasant their system is."

A Misleading Question from Kitchen Democracy

2006-08-13T17:52:00.000-07:00

The Berkeley web site named "Kitchen Democracy" recently posted this misleading question: Do you think the Transportation Commission should hold public hearings before the city implements Bus Rapid Transit?

This reminds me of the famous dishonest question: Have you stopped beating your wife? Purely by asking the question, you imply that it is common knowledge that this person used to beat his wife.

Likewise, by asking this question, Kitchen Democracy implies that there is a possibility the city will adopt BRT without holding public hearings. This is totally false. There was never any question of implementing BRT without holding public hearings about it.

Needless to say, this misleading question provoked many responses that were hostile to BRT, from people who actually believed the implication that the city was planning to do it without hearings.

I don't know if the people at Kitchen Democracy are deliberately trying to provoke antagonism to BRT or if they are really so ignorant that they think it is possible that the city would implement BRT without hearings. In either case, Kitchen Democracy is doing a disservice to Berkeley's democracy.

BRT Featured in Journal of Public Transportation

2006-08-12T21:17:00.001-07:00

At our last meeting, Roy Nakadegawa circulated the most recent issue of the Journal of Public Transportation (Vol. 9, No. 3), which focuses entirely on BRT. To view articles go to

http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/journalfulltext.htm

One important article states that BRT, more than a "no build" option and more than light rail, has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions.

Geary Boulevard BRT

2006-08-10T09:12:00.000-07:00

Hi All,

I attended the District 1 Town Hall Meeting at the Presidio Middle School (450 30th Ave) in San Francisco on Saturday, July 29 and heard a great presentation on the proposed Bus Rapid Transit designs for Geary Boulevard. There were several hundred people in attendance at this meeting, which was hosted by Gavin Newsom.

Julie Kirschbaum, Senior Transportation Planner, for the San Francisco County Transportation Authority gave a 15 minute talk on the proposals. I will try to get the text of her remarks from her office and post them here. Her phone number is 415-522-4830. Her email address is julie.kirschbaum@sfcta.org.

There are three options being considered.

* Curbside BRT
* Center BRT with Side Platforms
* Center BRT with Center Platforms

The Center BRT with Side Platforms seemed to me the best. With this design buses can pass each other and stay away from auto traffic.

One concern I've had about BRT all along is the impact on parking. It turns out that with Center BRT, the number of parking spaces on Geary Blvd will increase by 10%. When you change the system to eliminate curb stops for buses, a lot of parking is freed up. I would think business owners and other "stakeholders" along Geary would be happy about that.

From what I could gather in conversations with several people after the meeting, business opposition was due to the fact that the street would be disrupted during construction. I have no experience with this sort of thing, but I know that all kinds of civic improvements are disruptive to traffic patterns, sewer repair for one.

Overflow traffic onto streets paralleling Geary was discussed. According to Ms. Kirschbaum, 40% of the traffic on Geary would just disappear - I can't explain that remark, but hope that she can give her presentation sometime in Oakland or Berkeley and she could elaborate on it. She also said that a 20% increase in ridership was anticipated.

There was a small increase in traffic on streets parallel to Geary. There was some technical terminology that she used to describe this that was unfamiliar to me (vehicles/minute?). I think that she said that travel time between the Outer Richmond and downtown would improve by 20%, according to the modelling that was done.

The mayor pointed out that crossing Geary Boulevard would become much easier with a Center BRT option. Apparently Geary is 100 feet wide in places, and by having a wide center curb available, crossing the street is much easier. I would say the same would apply to Telegraph. How wide is Telegraph in Oakland?

The designs presented showed no separate lanes for bicycles. I submitted a written question asking about it. The mayor brought it up, and asked the planning staff to look into it.

The mayor took questions from the audience. No one spoke in opposition to the project, and there seemed to be general support for it.

NBC news videotaped the entire proceeding. I asked the cameraman if it was available as a webcast, and he said he didn't think so. This BRT presentation should be available online. I am going to ask Julie Kirschbaum if she can get the footage from NBC.

I looked for a story about this in the Chronicle yesterday (Sunday) and could find nothing. Did anyone see anything about it in local media?

I have some fold-out color brochures which I will be happy to provide to anyone who'd like one. I should have gotten a whole box of them, but only got ten. There are several people who've looked at the brochures and changed their attitude to BRT - several seemed to assume that they would be running along the curb, and would eliminate parking. When they realized that the Center Lane BRT was an option, and that more parking would be available, they saw it differently.

I was very impressed and excited by the whole event. I'd say the people in that neighborhood were looking forward to a much more efficient way to get from their neighborhood into the downtown area. The mayor, by the way, specifically mentioned the plans to construct a high speed rail terminal in San Francisco, and that the plan is to run the BRT to the terminal.

If anyone can get a copy of the videotape of the meeting from NBC of the BRT presentation, go for it. It would do a lot to change people's attitude about BRT, in my opinion.

Leonard