BRT as a Precursor of LRT? Lyndon Henry Data Analyst Capital Metro Austin, Texas TRB/APTA Joint Light Rail Transit Conference Los Angeles 20 April 2009 David Dobbs Publisher, Light Rail Now! Website

BRT as Precursor to Rail (Already) Guadalajara Dallas

Miami Seattle Los Angeles

BRT vs. LRT – Comparative Issues BRT investment total cost typically lower (but total life-cycle costs may be higher) Signal protection system? Compatible? BRT can use existing maintenance facilities, but these may need expansion Rail – longer life, higher salvage value Rail – tends to attract more riders, longer trips, lower unit O&M costs, more TOD More…

BRT – major investment with 30-year life, possibly impediment to LRT Curbside alignments not optimal BRT typical cross-section: ft LRT typical cross-section: ft Different horizontal and vertical geometric constraints and vehicle envelopes of BRT buses and LRT railcars If eventual conversion planned, LRT design requirements should rule

BRT as Precursor to LRT – Advantages Build ridership in corridor, bolster case for LRT Some infrastructure elements could benefit LRT (e.g., signal prioritization, communications, PID system) Urban renovation elements (e.g., pedestrian amenities) could benefit LRT Stations, if movable/upgradable, could benefit LRT

Case Examples

Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel 1.3 miles long, and has five stations Intended for conversion to LRT, with tracks laid in the busway pavement Rails insufficiently insulated against stray current leakage, insufficiently cushioned for noise control Platforms too low to permit level boarding $45 million overhaul necessary

Seattle: I-90 Transit/HOV Project and East Link LRT

Seattle: SR-99 RapidRide Pacific Highway South/International Boulevard (State Route 99) Intended to build transit ridership for eventual rail extensions Minimalist design, including mixed-traffic operation and lack of heavy infrastructure, may make conversion more feasible

Ottawa: Transitway 16.0 miles dedicated “transitways" (busways), 26 stations route-miles CBD reserved lanes miles of mixed-traffic running miles of freeway shoulder lanes = 25.8 route-miles Severe CBD bus crowding

Ottawa BRT-to-LRT Conversion Problems Service disruption during conversion Value for money not sufficient to justify conversion

Austin: Capital MetroRapid Limited-stop service operating in mixed traffic 2 routes: N. Lamar/S. Congress and Burnet/S. Lamar. Lamar-Guadalupe- Congress route may build transit ridership for eventual LRT Minimalist design, low cost ($28 to$38 million) may make conversion to LRT more feasible

Conclusions

Initial system design to facilitate conversion is critical BRT facilities should not represent an obstacle to the subsequent LRT BRT-specific infrastructure (including stations) should be designed to be very low in cost so sunk cost for BRT is not impediment to eventual conversion to LRT More…

Conversion of “high-end” exclusive BRT facilities to LRT tend to involve some degree of transit service shutdown or disruption during conversion process In contrast, “lower-end” express-bus or limited-stop types of BRT service can probably continue parallel service on adjacent highway or arterial lanes during conversion period More…

Alignments that have appropriated railway ROW for BRT make it virtually impossible to maintain a true parallel bus service – thus representing a serious obstacle facing conversion to LRT As planned BRT-to-LRT conversions become operational, updated assessments should be performed.

Lyndon Henry Data Analyst