Bus Rapid Transit Comes to Seattle in 2010
Posted by Mark Foss
This year King County Metro plans to begin its new RapidRide service. RapidRide is bus rapid transit (BRT) service intended to increase service frequency, speed and reliability along several dedicated surface street corridors. The first of five planned RapidRide lines will begin service in 2010, the rest are to commence operation between 2011 and 2013.
I’m a fan of the BRT concept. I like the idea of dedicated roadways, control of non-transit traffic and signal priority. I like very much the idea of automated payment systems that speed up boarding. A transit operator should have as little to do with fare collection as possible. I like the idea of AVL (GPS) systems that work well. But I also liked BRT’s predecessor — limited stop express service — which costs less. Does BRT deliver better service for the investment? I think it can. But there are operational hurdles to meet. Here are a few of my concerns:
RapidRide’s Line A will use a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane that isn’t completely separated from other traffic. Traffic enforcement will be necessary to keep cheaters from clogging the bus lanes. If the HOV lane isn’t kept moving, BRT won’t deliver on its promise. King County’s RapidRide Line A will pass through more than one jurisdiction — each with its own traffic enforcement priorities. Enforcement must be one of those priorities.
Relying on sophisticated technology to keep the busses moving on time could also be problematic. For example, resolving Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) problems — either during initial implementation or on-going operations — could cause service to slow down. Some BRT projects have had problems implementing TSP systems, in part due to the number of parties involved (BRT Institute’s evaluation of MBTA). Multiple entities involved in resolving TSP problems won’t work very well. RapidRide’s Control Center Communications Coordinator needs one number to call to resolve signal malfunctions quickly.
I like the look of some of the BRT busses in service. However, busses that are purchased to look different from the rest of the fleet have a drawback. The need for “branding” limits breadth of equipment use. For example, it may be harder to swap out a bus that is broken down in a timely manner. Non-BRT busses that are on the way back to the garage at the end of scheduled service can be diverted to replace busses that are broken down. Perhaps the assumption is that BRT service frequency will limit the impact of this kind of event. Experience suggests, however, that this can backfire — e.g. two busses that break down in succession causing overloads. My experience also suggests that routes pulling out in the morning could experience problems, if a shortage of spare BRT busses occurs, since substitution is not an option.
The BRT concept promises to deliver benefits associated with rail. I’ve used rail (light and/or heavy) in Washington D.C., Portland Oregon, Seattle Washington, Germany and Russia. I don’t think rail is a good comparison. However, my concern is less what BRT is compared with than whether it achieves its goal — increased service frequency, speed and reliability along a dedicated corridor. If BRT in King County is to reap those benefits, it will stand or fall on whether the bus lane offers quick unobstructed passage; and whether problems can be worked out quickly. Let the games begin!
Mark Foss has more than 24 years experience working for King County Metro Transit. His experience includes work as a bus operator, special ridership coordinator in accessible services and 1st line transit supervisor. Currently, he works as a communications coordinator in the transit control center (TCC).
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Link was a success because it was on time and consistant, not to mention very aethetically pleasing, so combining that with Rapid Ride which promises the same sort of things can only lead to success(if it works of course).