Speaking of bus rapid transit

Cavan, on Greater Greater Washington in "Buses and BRT: some facts" recounts the testimony of Ed Tennyson, a retired transportation official with extensive experience with SEPTA in Philadelphia and the PA State DOT, about the dedicated busways/bus rapid transit system in Pittsburgh (which I have happened to ride and it works great). The ridership is relatively anemic, and as little as 20% of the projections. Far more people ride the top bus lines in DC (30s, 70s, S, X, 90s) than any of these lines. (As people know though, I love how the Port Authority uses bus vehicles as rolling billboards to promote transit.)

He also quotes Tennyson on the cost effectiveness of light rail vs. BRT in Los Angeles. Light rail wins! From the blog entry:

Los Angeles has three Light Rail Lines and several BRT projects but Light Rail is the low cost operation. 48 cents per passenger-mile vs. 55 cents by bus BUT the accounting is distorted. They assign General Administration cost by passenger, so empty buses get no such cost, but busy Light Rail lines carry the bus overhead costs.

As Cavan points out, BRT is a reasonable service to offer as part of a complete transportation system. And as many of us believe, there is a lot of room for the improvement of bus service throughout the region, "rapid," "limited stop," "express," "rapider" or local.

But for high capacity movement of people, rail is the way: streetcar, light rail, heavy rail, railroad.

Let's be honest about BRT in high capacity situations. It's an inferior substitute. In places that are completely bus-based, it's a better option. In places dominated by high capacity fixed rail, it's better to look at rail rather than bus, when it comes to expansion and building greater ridership.