NYC Gets First BRT Line
by Jesse Fox, Tel Aviv, Israel on 04. 1.08
Mayor Bloomberg and the gang inaugurate the "salsarengue" bus.
Transit got a major boost in The City last week with a brand new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line in the Bronx. Despite the fact that some city officials view the Bronx "as a border between Lower Manhattan and suburban car commuters," city planners decided to follow dozens of other cities worldwide in adopting BRT technology. Cheaper than a subway or a light rail, a BRT line functions "almost like a surface subway system," as DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan described it, and will likely bring a heap of economic and other benefits to the Bronx in its wake.
The Bronx BRT line is set to take over the route of a bus line nicknamed the "salsarengue bus," after the musical tastes of the neighborhood's largely Latino population.
New York City is already one of the easiest American cities to get around by public transport, and one of the only ones where the majority of its residents prefer to bus/subway/BRT to the car. The fact that NYC has chosen to adopt BRT technology is likely to influence other American cities to consider doing the same. In a country where the roads are the major public works projects in most places, upgrading bus lines to BRT technology could prove to be a more efficient transit solution than building light rails and subways, which require new and expensive infrastructures of their own.
However, the chances that you'll be taking the BRT line on your next visit to NYC may not be so great, as Mayor Bloomberg has linked the creation of additional BRT routes in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island to the passage of his controversial congestion charge idea, which has been bogged down in controversy for quite a while now.
Via:: Streetsblog
Ah, and here the fun begins. "Cheaper", eh? "Could prove to be more efficient"? In a few decades, cost per boarding will be so much higher than it is for electric rail that the aggregate total will overtake the capital cost of building rail in the first place.
Remember, you can't get that many people on a bus, compared to a rail vehicle. Driver costs are significantly higher. Also note that there are stoplights and cross-streets - average speed is variable, and likely lower than most rail systems. Fuel costs are higher than electricity costs. Maintenance costs are higher for diesel vehicles than electric. Vehicle lifetime is half of that of a rail vehicle. Roadway maintenance and driving surface replacement are much more expensive and environmentally damaging than rail maintenance.
I'm also not sure how burning fuel is more efficient than using electricity (which comes from, at *worst*, higher efficiency and cleaner fuel burning systems, even when accounting grid losses).
Those who look at Bogota and Curitiba claim there is "no difference" between them and New York. Right. So, cities with 10-12% car ownership are no different from a city with 46% car ownership (and 40% in the Bronx)?
I've been watching this issue for a long time. A subway is necessary here in the long term - it's ironic that the MTA discusses "long term planning" when the 100 year solution was rail, and the 20 year solution was buses, by their own study.
Ah, and here the fun begins. "Cheaper", eh? "Could prove to be more efficient"? In a few decades, cost per boarding will be so much higher than it is for electric rail that the aggregate total will overtake the capital cost of building rail in the first place.
Remember, you can't get that many people on a bus, compared to a rail vehicle. Driver costs are significantly higher. Also note that there are stoplights and cross-streets - average speed is variable, and likely lower than most rail systems. Fuel costs are higher than electricity costs. Maintenance costs are higher for diesel vehicles than electric. Vehicle lifetime is half of that of a rail vehicle. Roadway maintenance and driving surface replacement are much more expensive and environmentally damaging than rail maintenance.
I'm also not sure how burning fuel is more efficient than using electricity (which comes from, at *worst*, higher efficiency and cleaner fuel burning systems, even when accounting grid losses).
Those who look at Bogota and Curitiba claim there is "no difference" between them and New York. Right. So, cities with 10-12% car ownership are no different from a city with 46% car ownership (and 40% in the Bronx)?
I've been watching this issue for a long time. A subway is necessary here in the long term - it's ironic that the MTA discusses "long term planning" when the 100 year solution was rail, and the 20 year solution was buses, by their own study.
congestion pricing went through this morning
A BRT line is being built in Cleveland as well, expected to be operational by year-end.
Some observations:
1. The Cleveland BRT line runs in exclusive lanes in the center of the road with elevated platforms in the middle of the street.
The buses are extended two-car articulated vehicles, so the capacity is much larger than a standard bus. Operating costs probably won't be much different than a standard bus, however.
2. While a rail system would be cheaper to operate (and in Cleveland you would think that a subway system would be necessary given our snowy winters), federal money was only available for a road project, not a rail project. As I recall the federal funds were about 25% of the total cost, but the project never would have happened without it.
Cleveland took the opportunity to rebuild the entire road and replace all of the utilities underneath, some of which were over 100 years old. Smart planning and hopefully we won't have to dig up that roadway for a long time. Many Cleveland roads are a maze of patched potholes.
Time will tell whether the system operates as hyped and advertised.
Keep us posted Bronx!
i should add a little more since the last commenter is woefully ill-informed
1. NYC uses hybrid electric buses:
"The MTA and NYC Transit have been pioneers in the development of Hybrid bus technology, with experience going back more than a decade. The technology boasts lower exhaust emissions and improved fuel economy over standard buses. Bus customers also benefit from the low-floor design of the Hybrid Electrics, of which, NYC Transit currently operates the largest Hybrid fleet in the world, with 548 buses in service."
2. Like in Bogota, here will be a traffic control system that gives BRT vehicles right of way (all green lights).
Not sure how you could miss such a big chunks of the equation while watching the issue so closely.
People should be more informed before being so critical of what is a pretty significant improvement to a glacially changing system. Would you really prefer they put in more subways?? Is that really the answer?
Public (i.e tax-funded) roads are a cancer.
Because the development and maintenance costs are sunk (from the commuter's standpoint), these costs have no deterrent power.
Thus the roads themselves are overcrowded (slow, dangerous, aggravating), suburban sprawl is encouraged (unpleasant lifestyle made more attractive through subsidy), and consumer goods fail to reflect transportation costs (delocalization of the food supply is of particular concern).
Of course none of this bothers the automaker lobby.
"congestion pricing went through this morning"
No, no it did not. That was just the city, it still needs to be approved by the state.
While I love rail, BRT is still a viable solution for low density, frequent use lines.
Anonymous:
1) The hybrid electric buses (New Flyer DE60LF) have not shown to be significantly more efficient.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/203509_metro13.html
This is especially the case on faster routes with fewer stops - the added energy cost of dragging the batteries overwhelms acceleration efficiencies and regenerative braking.
2) The vehicles most certainly do not get all green lights. They get longer green lights, and shorter red lights. It's just a priority system. Read the article! This is actually mentioned.