think service, not mode
It’s been 2 months now since METRO unveiled its light rail+BRT+commuter rail “Phase II implementation plan.” Reaction has been mixed, and predictable: neighborhoods that now get busses instead of trains feel cheated; light rail skeptics like the idea of using a less expensive technology; and suburban politicians like commuter rail. Equally predictably, much of the discussion has been along the familiar lines of “this technology is better than that other technology.” But it’s a lot more complicated than that. The buzzword “BRT” covers a lot of different services. A comparison, with some notes on what it means to a rider:
| type | local bus | BRT “lite” | full BRT | light rail |
| example | Houston 2 Bellaire | Los Angeles Rapid | Cleveland Euclid Corridor | Houston METRORail |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| stations with shelters and seating | sometimes | yes | yes | yes |
| Shelters = a place to sit in the shade and out of the rain while you wait. | ||||
| ticket machines at stations | no | no | yes | yes |
| Ticket machines = you can board at any door and you won’t be held up while somebody fumbles for change. | ||||
| simple routes and distinctive vehicles | no | yes | yes | yes |
| Simple routes = you know you’re getting on the right bus without having to remember numbers. | ||||
| traffic light priority | no | yes | yes | yes |
| Traffic light priority = you get there faster. | ||||
| reserved lanes | no | no | yes | yes |
| Reserved lanes = you’ll be at your destination in the same time at nay time of day, regardless of traffic. | ||||
| frequency of service | irregular | 5-15 min. | 5-15 min. | 5-15 min. |
| Frequent service = you can show up at the stop without checking a schedule and you’ll be on your way soon. | ||||
By no stretch of the imagination is “BRT lite” a light rail equivalent service. Full BRT is pretty close, though (light rail still has higher capacity and a smoother ride). The question is: which are we getting?
METRO says its BRT will be rail-ready, with the tracks already laid in the ground. That implies that the alignment will be to light rail standards, with reserved lanes, traffic light priority, and so forth. This should mean we’re getting full BRT, not “BRT lite”.
But the difference is in the details, and the kind of service we get will be determined by decisions made as design progresses. METRO may compromise in response to budget and community concerns, or they may hold firm to the goal of light rail equivalent service. For example, residents along Scott Street are worried both about traffic impacts from removing car lanes and impact on houses from widening the street. METRO might respond by having busses and cars share a lane, pleasing some residents but delivering an inferior transit system. Another instance: light rail can’t cross railroad lines at grade, but BRT can. Does “rail-ready” mean that the required overpasses will be built right away, or will METRO save money by postponing them, leaving busses stuck behind crossing gates and making conversion to rail more difficult?
Fundamentally, few people care about bus vs. rail. That’s a debate for politicians and transportation geeks. What riders care about is how soon their ride gets there, how comfortable it is, and how quickly they will get where they are going. That’s the bottom line, and that’s how this plan should be judged.
Discuss this post in the CTC forums.