Bus Rapid Transit

DaronDierkes · PostJul 05, 2010#12010-07-05T10:20+00:00

In most of the 'Moving Transit Forward' route maps I've seen, the Grand BRT does not seem to clearly connect to I-55 or I-70. This leaves out Carondelet Park and Bissell Tower as destinations for the Grand bus. It looks like the bus would stop short at Natural Bridge to meet the MetroLink extension, but why not continue it forward to meet I-70? The distance isn't that great.

The bus currently covers the whole distance. BRT to me suggests high-frequency, designated lanes, and perhaps articulated buses. If the Grand BRT does not go the entire length of the current route, what will be the difference between service south of Natural Bridge and service north of Natural Bridge?

kustramo · PostJul 06, 2010#22010-07-06T13:55+00:00

The BRT only makes a few stops like the train would. If I had to guess there will be a BRT and a continued Grand bus route as well that would make up the difference, but that's just a guess...

dmmonty1 · PostJul 07, 2010#32010-07-07T00:26+00:00

Anyone know how far apart stops on the Grand BRT would be? And where?

DaronDierkes · PostJul 07, 2010#42010-07-07T07:22+00:00

It's still BRT if there are dedicated bus lanes, high frequency of service, and cool articulated buses. The stops don't have to be that far apart. If there's a regular bus making stops the BRT would have to wait for it to get out of the way anyway.

On the point of speed vs. frequency, speed isn't that important. Spacing the stops far apart and increasing the speed limit (i.e. interstate plying buses) is a waste if the bus only comes every twenty minutes and takes five minutes to load and unload. It's a matter of where you want to wait. I'd rather be on the bus sitting and looking out the window than waiting at the bus stop shivering in the cold, so I'd prefer higher frequency of service. If you'd prefer to wait at the bus stop and spend little time on the actual bus, then you'd be a speed person, I guess.

I assumed we were designating the Grand bus as BRT not creating a BRT line to run in tandem with it. Either idea works, but there's still no explaination for why the route isn't show to connect to the I-70 route.

Also, as this is a general thread, has anybody noticed how awesome City to River's boulevard proposal is in conjunction with the planned BRT routes? It brings them all together.

Look at this map!

Jordan S. Wilson · PostAug 11, 2010#52010-08-11T17:16+00:00

Well!! this is a good one!!

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 11, 2010#62010-08-11T17:40+00:00

Last year I rode the HealthLine in Cleveland and to be honest, maybe the biggest problem I had with it were the number of stops. There were too many, which took the "rapid" out of BRT. Old blog post: http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=11

10-intuition · PostAug 11, 2010#72010-08-11T19:47+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:Last year I rode the HealthLine in Cleveland and to be honest, maybe the biggest problem I had with it were the number of stops. There were too many, which took the "rapid" out of BRT. Old blog post: http://urbanstl.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=11

This whole BRT project idea reminds me of Nashville's BRT service. I ride Nashville MTA's Gallatin BRT all the time, when I am there to see family. MTA has two bus routes that run along Gallatin Pike from their downtown TC to Rivergate Mall. Note, this is one of their busiest routes and this BRT has been around for over a year. MTA's 26 bus takes about an hour to reach the mall from downtown and vice versa. However, the 56 BRT does the same route in about half that, that is due to strategically placed stops along the Pike. MTA has plans to place sensors on the buses to make the stoplights stay consistent to make the service quicker without much stopping. This is like their version of lightrail, utilizing six NABI 60-BRT Hybrid buses and their Neoplan AN460 artics.

For comparison purposes:

http://www.nashvillemta.org/maps/route26.pdf
http://www.nashvillemta.org/maps/route56.pdf

Metro STL should consider less stops along Grand for its BRT service, but if not then, they wouldn't need a fancy bus like that NABI 60-BRT they tested almost 2 years ago. I would love to see NovaBUS LFS artics in St. Louis!

Alex Ihnen · PostAug 11, 2010#82010-08-11T20:21+00:00

I want these:

And I want them to run like this:

DaronDierkes · PostAug 12, 2010#92010-08-12T01:32+00:00

I think the MAX in KC is pretty great, recent efforts to upgrade the main street four to light rail seems kind of silly. Getting the second Max line on Troost is more exciting.

Jordan S. Wilson · PostAug 12, 2010#102010-08-12T01:40+00:00

The Kansas City MAX is already a model of Missouri Public Transit at its works. I can't wait for the Grand BRT Line to be in full operation.

warwickland · PostJan 05, 2011#112011-01-05T21:23+00:00

Does anyone know anything about the timeline of the Grand Ave BRT? More details? It would be nice if it were ready to go by the time the Grand Ave viaduct is complete.

At the least, I hope the Grand BRT is more like the articulated Boston silver line than the KC MAX. The MAX is alright, but doesnt quite go far enough across the threshhold. This line being the backbone of the backbone (metrolink), if we step it up a little more we will see a lot in return. I'd like to see the Grand BRT an articulated electric trolley bus -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... sett_2.JPG

stlgasm · PostJan 07, 2011#122011-01-07T18:28+00:00

I don't mean to be snob, but I think BRT is for amateurs. We should advocate for a bona fide rail line. Bring the streetcars back to Grand.

DaronDierkes · PostJan 07, 2011#132011-01-07T19:27+00:00

The point I've been trying to make for a while is that dedicated bus lanes can be used by more than one bus route. Forget the overhead wires and the articulated buses. That's just part of the show. The real benefit is sytem-wide. Building bus lanes and bus stations on Grand allows for pretty much every bus in the city to transfer directly to it, and for every bus stop on Grand to take people to several different destinations.

Better bus stops can bring neighborhoods together and make a transit system more usable.

Streetcars are fine if they're interchangable with buses and serve the same stops. If they're not, then we've wasted a lot of money shooting ourselves in the foot.

The idea that rail is for real cities and buses for the really poor has got to be exorcised from our system if we're to progress.

warwickland · PostJan 07, 2011#142011-01-07T20:48+00:00

DaronDierkes wrote:The point I've been trying to make for a while is that dedicated bus lanes can be used by more than one bus route. Forget the overhead wires and the articulated buses. That's just part of the show. The real benefit is sytem-wide. Building bus lanes and bus stations on Grand allows for pretty much every bus in the city to transfer directly to it, and for every bus stop on Grand to take people to several different destinations.

Where would be put a bus only lane on Grand? It "works" on Main Street in KC because it's three lanes each way, but Grand is going to be mostly one lane, with some sections of two and even shorter sections of three each way south of Delmar (which I assume the screwed up anti pedestrian mess that is grand around the north and south SLU campus will be addressed at both ends of the new viaduct...). north of delmar is a different question, but I don't understand the importance of Bus only lanes if there is no congestion, as is the case up there.

Back to KC, there is no on street parking on Main in KC, which seems insane to me just for the benefit of a bus lane in an uncongested small midwestern city. They seem to have cut their nose off despite their face, lots of shabby parcels where there should be higher quality development. The bus lanes have done nothing to reduce the autocentric mania that Main is. Theres lots of gaping holes in the urban fabric, with curb cuts for half filled parking lots. It just all doesn't make sense to me...I'd rather see congestion, on street parking, wide sidewalks, less total lanes, no curb cuts, no bus lane, wires strung everywhere, electric trolly buses mixing with regular buses, upgraded stops, the kind of thing I see in Philly and SF. I can see the benefit of bus only lanes in CBDs.

I'd like to see us really up the ante to bring online the rider base that is SLU, spread more of those dollars along Grand (instead of the Galleria) and bring Grand Center solidly into the company of Downtown and the CWE. I think we need something a little heavier duty than normal buses with good bus stops to connect with metrolink.

DaronDierkes · PostJan 08, 2011#152011-01-08T01:32+00:00

Bus lanes in the CBD? Try Kingshighway, Market, Tucker, or Memorial.

If you think Grand is too narrow, I can't imagine why you'd take over a one-way street. The road needs to be Kingshighway sized for the classic Curitiba look.

You're right, sections of Grand are too narrow, and obviously those sections wouldn't accomodate bus lanes. Bus lanes can be intermittant in just the sections where the road accomodates it. That's fine. We do the same with bike lanes.

Removing on street parking for bus lanes is not a great idea. Putting a bus lane in the middle and stations in the median is a more expensive option with greater benefits for pedestrians and parking cars. It conceptually narrows the street which calms cars and pedestrians.

Seoul (and perhaps New York City soon) staggers its stations to avoid the extreme width of two bus lanes and two stations. At most they have two lanes and one station. It isn't a huge difference, but takes the obstruction off the sidewalks and doesn't mess with on street parking (although in this image, you'll notice there's also a bus stop on the side of the street for neighborhood buses).

This image shows a working system on a road that is between six and seven lanes wide. Obviously if that road were too narrow, then the buses could just merge with regular traffic.

Anyway, the original point is that we should plan for buses even if we do invest in rail. Any infrastructure built should be a common platform for multiple types of vehicles. In the image above more than one type of bus is using the same bus lane (blue=cross-city, green=district). I have no problem with street cars and electric buses, but I want them all to be compatible with the regular MetroBus that is so sadly neglected in this town.

PostJan 26, 2011#162011-01-26T17:37+00:00

lukethedrifter wrote:Who the heck wants to walk next to an Interstate highway? I've done it and it's not nice.

Nobody. That's why putting BRT lines along our highways should be done with care. Note the trouble in Charlotte

zun1026 · PostFeb 07, 2011#172011-02-07T20:15+00:00

DaronDierkes wrote:
lukethedrifter wrote:Who the heck wants to walk next to an Interstate highway? I've done it and it's not nice.
Nobody. That's why putting BRT lines along our highways should be done with care. Note the trouble in Charlotte

Thats why pulling them off the highway at stops is a good idea IMO.

pattimagee · PostJun 02, 2021#182021-06-02T19:45+00:00

Seeing this mapped out feels really nice.

symphonicpoet · PostJun 03, 2021#192021-06-03T05:24+00:00

^It's a good map. And it does pair up well with some of Metro's higher frequency bus routes. Would love to see that as a modern dedicated RoW streetcar system. (I've been trying to build approximately that in NIMBY rails. Off and on as the urge strikes me.)

I'd love to do a compare and contrast between BRT, Light Rail, and Modern Trolley if NIMBY rail would permit it. Mind you, it's no urban development tool. Just a game. But it's still kind of fun.

Laife Fulk · PostJun 03, 2021#202021-06-03T12:32+00:00

What’s the benefit of a streetcar over BRT? Financially, I’m assuming BRT with dedicated ROW would be much easier to build and run and easier to adjust if needed.

GoHarvOrGoHome · PostJun 03, 2021#212021-06-03T14:11+00:00

IMO modern streetcars work better as a development tool through your densest neighborhoods that would want to continue to densify. They are slower and have closer together stops which would make an alignment down say Chippewa way more conducive to BRT, but something down the spine of the central corridor would be more appropriate. If it's not free and frequent though forget it.

dweebe · PostJun 03, 2021#222021-06-03T14:21+00:00

pattimagee wrote: ↑
Jun 02, 2021
Seeing this mapped out feels really nice.

That would be a great setup if it included 8-10 minute headways

kipfilet · PostJun 03, 2021#232021-06-03T14:24+00:00

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑
Jun 03, 2021
What’s the benefit of a streetcar over BRT? Financially, I’m assuming BRT with dedicated ROW would be much easier to build and run and easier to adjust if needed.

This is probably a good place to start and eventually move to a streetcar if the concept is successful.
Agree with it being free and frequent, even though frequency is probably more important if you really want diverse ridership. I personally don't care if it is is free or not, but won't ride it unless it is frequent.

MarkHaversham · PostJun 03, 2021#242021-06-03T15:04+00:00

Laife Fulk wrote: ↑
Jun 03, 2021
What’s the benefit of a streetcar over BRT? Financially, I’m assuming BRT with dedicated ROW would be much easier to build and run and easier to adjust if needed.

I think streetcars are a bit smoother-riding and lower-maintenance. Mostly streetcars aren't that different in cost, performance or convenience to gold-standard BRTs as far as I can tell.

npav · PostJun 03, 2021#252021-06-03T15:11+00:00

pattimagee wrote: ↑
Jun 02, 2021
Seeing this mapped out feels really nice.

An awesome plan, would love to have such a straight-forward rapid transit system in STL.

It fills a huge gap on Kingshighway / Hampton / South City area for public transit and love all the potential transfer stops really connecting the whole city.

With all the stalled MetroLink extension studies / plans / no real official news on a lightrail extension in years, BRT would be better than what we have now if properly executed and if the public embraces it, the most popular lines could use it as an argument to be upgraded to lightrail track.