Metro Magazine

APR 2013

Magazine serving the bus and rail transit & motorcoach operations since 1904

Issue link: https://metromag.epubxp.com/i/116664

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 19 of 61

2013 BRT SURVEY FUELING most common project benefits reported were travel time savings and shorter dwell time; connections to major employers and transfer points, airport and rail; improved job and housing access; and faster boarding due to pre-boarding tickets. Additionally, one project created or sustained the equivalent of 900 full-time jobs: Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada's Sahara Express. Quantity % 18 < mETRO mAGAZINE APRIL 2013 CNG Clean Diesel 3% 14 HybridElectric 21% POLICY EXPERT HIGHLIGHTS BRT ADVANTAGES 50% 32% 33 21 New projects, such as Chicago's Jeffery Jump and VIA's Primo in San Antonio, opened in 2012, signify a growing wave of enthusiasm for transit in mid-sized and large cities. What makes BRT projects stand out as a popular transit choice right now in the U.S., Art Guzzetti, VP, policy, American Public Transportation Association says, is its versatility. BRT is flexible enough to be used to varying degrees to improve many different transit services. "You have maybe 20 characteristics that could define BRT," he explains. "Some prospects will include a good number of those and some just a few, but no matter how many you include, you're still making the service in that corridor better." BRT provides a series of strategies that can help make buses move through a corridor faster so it serves passengers better, Guzzetti adds. Planners can choose from a menu of service characteristics that meet the community best. One benefit of this is a continuum of project costs. "You don't necessarily have to do all of it to accomplish the goal of making the service better to attract additional riders," Guzzetti says. "You can settle into a place that is affordable yet still a significant service improvement." On the downside, BRT planners will constantly be questioned, Guzzetti warns. "When I worked in Pittsburgh and we built BRT, people were saying, 'Why aren't you building light rail?' When we built light rail, people were saying, 'Why aren't you building BRT?'" he recalls. "You will have people with different perspectives, but there's no wrong or right. You just make your best choice. In Pittsburgh, we had light rail in certain corridors, BRT in others. We made the right decisions for [each] corridor. You're not choosing one over the other; you're choosing a family of services that all connect into [one] system." Guzzetti stresses the need to conduct a planning study and get the community involved. "When people go into a community and say, 'We should build BRT here,' that's a conclusion. You don't start with that; you end with that. The transit project is more than just mobility," he says. "You're talking about flexibility, the development impacts of those decisions and how it connects with other parts of the system, and if you build BRT, how to tie it into other services." Trolley 2 0 Propulsion Type 20 40 60 80 100 Exactly one-half of operators plan to use hybrid-electric propulsion for their buses, about the same as last year. Nearly one-third selected CNG, up slightly from last year's 28%, with clean diesel down by about one-third from last year, at 21%. Only 3% of operators plan to use trolleys. (Note: Some transit authorities selected two propulsion methods, so percentages overlap.) Everett, Wash.-based Community Transit's SWIFT is one of many projects that receives a high level of community and political support. However, coordination has been a challenge. For fare collection, more than two-thirds chose cash/coin, more than half chose on-board and off-board payment, about half chose smart card payments and slightly more than one-third chose magnetic strip. Tree of the projects submitted, those run by Orlando, Fla.'s Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX), are fare-free. Among running way features, survey respondents overwhelmingly chose mixed-fow arterials, at 92%, with dedicated arterials at half that rate (46%). Selection of station characteristics broke down as designated stations (81%), enhanced stops (63%), pedestrian-friendly areas (79%) and intermodal terminals (48%). Other features included enhanced lighting (15%, nearly half of which is solar-powered), real-time message signs and fare vending machines (14%), and bicycle accessibility (5%). Nearly all respondents chose passenger information when asked about ITS features. More than three-quarters selected signal manipulation (89%), vehicle tracking (83%) and voice annunciation (78%). Nearly half are using ITS for security and almost 10% are ofering Wi-Fi. Other uses included telephone system for stops and a passenger counting system, cited by Ottawa's Transitway. metro-magazine.com

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Metro Magazine - APR 2013