Comments on: The Explosive Growth of Bus Rapid Transit

By: Perez

Perez — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 18:45:21 +0000

I must add that the BRT in Ahmedabad is almost 90-100kms now and carries a lot more than 4million passengers every month. It is the most successful BRT project in India and has received many international awards.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:06:44 +0000

Correction: Public Square to Stokes-Windermere rapid station.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:05:26 +0000

I was comparing the timetables of the Red Line (66) heavy rail to the timetables of the Euclid Corridor BRT. The BRT takes 35 minutes to get from downtown to Superior Station, while the Red Line rapid takes only 20 minutes for the same trip. Thats a 42% increase in trip time. I am not impressed. Source: riderta.com

By: Laura Byrne Paquet

Laura Byrne Paquet — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:44:34 +0000

Here in Ottawa, Canada, the city council is about to replace part of the almost 30-year-old BRT system with light rail. While light rail is a great idea, replacing one of the only parts of our local bus system that actually works seems misguided. The original plan was to build the light rail along a route not currently served by BRT. That made more sense.

http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/rapid_transit/investing_en.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Rapid_Transit

By: Alek F

Alek F — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:58:23 +0000

I wish the websites and various news-sources would stop imposing this ridiculous BRT upon us. Folks, BRT is only a bus. And a bus is just a bus. Even on dedicated routes. The drawbacks of the current Orange line in Los Angeles are obvious: very limited capacity, leading to sardine-packed, overcrowded buses, an extremely lousy ride, high operating costs, low speeds, high accident rates (especially in the beginning, upon the line just opening), all of those factors are an indicator that BRT is just a mediocre service, not comparable to efficiency of Light-Rail, and especially – subway.

P.S. Certainly, BRT is better than regular bus service (or so-called “Rapid” buses) but if you want to create a truly reliable & fast transit line – BRT should be completely out of the question. You get what you pay for. The lower initial investment (into BRT) will result in low-quality service and higher operating costs, as already mentioned.

By: Owen Dell, ASLA

Owen Dell, ASLA — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:15:55 +0000

I’m surprised there’s no mention of Curitiba, Brazil. That’s where the whole idea of BRT originated. The city government persuaded Volvo to develop the first bi-articulating bus at their local factory. Separate bus lanes, color-coded buses, super-fast passenger loading facilities, nodal development were all part of the pioneering efforts in Curitiba, decades ago. It’s an impressive system. All the others mentioned in this article are derivative of the work done in Curitiba, and many of the cities mentioned sent their transportation people to Curitiba to study what they had done.

By: Justin N

Justin N — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:55:38 +0000

Los Angeles is far from the only city in the U.S. with a BRT system. Currently operating systems include the HealthLine in Cleveland, the EmX in Eugene, OR, Boston’s Silver Line system (two lines), and New York’s Select Bus service Bx12 and M15.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:08:13 +0000

oh – nevermind – i see it’s a direct quote from Hidalgo.

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 23:06:12 +0000

where does this quote come from?

“rushed implementation, tight financial planning, high occupancy rates, deterioration of infrastructure, and fare system fragmentation.”