QuoteWhen you focus on what really matters—service—much of the difference actually disappears.
ERIC JAFFE
Take a look at the image above. This rendering represents modern bus rapid transit service. The BRT vehicle travels in its own separate lane, free from the constraints of traffic congestion or traffic lights. The bus is sleek and the shelter is pleasant. If you could see the boarding procedure, too, you'd find that passengers buy their fares ahead of time, enabling them to enter quickly through any door, just as they do on a train.
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/hensher_BRT/0e8bd9127.jpg)
Now take a look at the image below, which shows a modern light rail service. The scenes are remarkably similar. This train travels in the same dedicated lane and even has the same style. The only real difference you'll find, if you look very close, is the faint sign of tracks on the ground.
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2015/02/hensher_lrt/db3a40afd.jpg)
Given what we know from these two pictures alone, there's no reason to suspect these two rides—modern BRT or modern light rail—would be noticeably different experiences. And yet when transport scholars David Hensher and Corinne Mulley of the University of Sydney Business School showed these images to about 1,370 people in six Australian capital cities, the difference in preference was enormous.
Full article: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/02/the-myth-that-everyone-naturally-prefers-trains-to-buses/385759/
Good article. However, at the end of the day, you'll end up investing just as much in true BRT (dedicated lanes) as you will with rail without the expensive bells and whistles.
QuoteSo it's possible that some people just love trains more than buses. But it's equally likely, in many cases, that people have just used "trains" to mean "good transit" and "buses" to mean "bad transit." If that's the case, then marketing better buses as something like trains (or, at least, something other than buses) should weaken this automatic association. But such efforts will fall flat without meaningful investments in well-designed service: dedicated lanes, reliable peak and off-peak service, off-board fare payments, comfortable stations or enhanced shelters, or reconfigured routes, to start the list. A pretty picture alone isn't enough.
Unfortunately, we still have a problem admitting that in the US. So many of our agencies tend to give their citizens something cheaper and not as efficient (BRT lite...or BRT without the dedicated lanes), while selling people on the potential benefits more associated with dedicated lanes and fixed transit.
I get the article and their points. Service is king.
Trains dont necessarily require operators, buses including BRT do.
BRT service has a human element which can lead to poor service. Trains (if automated) have disciplines in their operations that people expect and respect. They arrange their schedules to them.
Buses are pliable. People expect the bus to vary to them to load bicycles, lower themselves for the elderly, hold on when you are running to catch up. And in some cases adjust their timing for a girlfriend or love interest.
When I lived in Chicago, would I have ridden a BRT in place of Metra? If the BRT had the same scheduling and operational disciplines, yes I would.
So while I agree with most of the assertions of the article, the issue isnt how the public percieves buses, its how the entity chooses to operate them compared to most rail.
Service isn't King permanence is. The fixed nature of rails is what makes business and community invest and grow around it. Why build near a bus stop that can easily be moved to the next street if this street becomes not optimal.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 07, 2015, 10:50:35 AM
Service isn't King permanence is. The fixed nature of rails is what makes business and community invest and grow around it. Why build near a bus stop that can easily be moved to the next street if this street becomes not optimal.
Because people can walk a block or two. Bus lines are great - the issue is density. You don't need rail to get people to invest and grow. It can help - but if you just put a rail line in somewhere and don't do anything else, you're not likely to see much in the way of permanent growth. You need a strategy or plan or whatever. For example, if Jax built a rail line running downtown, you might see some stuff happen. But if this is built in isolation and not part of a greater plan to revitalize downtown, it's likely to die on the vine once the novelty wears off. You need a strategy to get businesses to open downtown and to get people to live downtown.
I'm not crazy about BRT, but I can see how it would be very useful in a variety of circumstances. And you'll always need buses (maybe not BRT), even with rail. I think, as Lakelander pointed out, that the main issue with BRT is that in order to do it well, you're going to spend a lot of money anyway - why not just build light rail (as it seems people prefer it anyway)?
If BRT can overcome the stigma that is connected with riding city buses and can manage to break free of the misconception that it will only be stuck in traffic with the other motor vehicles, it will be a success. Perhaps BRT routes, once proven to carry people, will be converted to some form of rail one day... In the meantime, I am somewhat skeptical...
^It really doesn't make sense to attempt to convert a BRT line into any form of rail. You'd be asking tax payers to pay probably twice as much (two systems as opposed to one) and you'd destroy the ridership built during the construction process. From my experience, these systems tend to work best when they complement each other and happen to be well integrated with the local land use and zoning regulations.
For example, Cleveland's Health Line not only includes dedicated lanes (cost over $25 million a mile though) but it's only a few blocks north of the red line (heavy rail). While the red line's stations are more spaced out, the Health Line provides service to the destinations in between. Most of the TOD you'll find is around University Circle, which is served by both lines. Unfortunately, we've become a world where advocates fight the technologies against each other, so in many cases we never reach the optimal goal with either mode.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2585925625_2rLVCVg-M.jpg)