BRT as a Precursor of LRT?

Lyndon HenryData Analyst

Capital Metro • Austin, Texas

TRB/APTA Joint Light Rail Transit Conference

Los Angeles

20 April 2009

David DobbsPublisher, 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: 20-54 ft• LRT typical cross-section: 30-35 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 + 1.2 route-miles CBD reserved lanes + 2.0 miles of mixed-traffic running + 6.6 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

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

512.369-7756

Lyndon.henry@capmetro.org

512.441-3014

Nawdry@gmail.com