Portland, Oregon, USA recently constructed a "bus rapid transit" (BRT) route on Division St, covering a variety of densities and street layouts. The project has so far been a success, offering 20%...
Portland, Oregon, USA recently constructed a "bus rapid transit" (BRT) route on Division St, covering a variety of densities and street layouts. The project has so far been a success, offering 20% shorter travel times and a 40% increase in ridership. That's about 520k more annual rides than the previous service, or a total of about 1.8 million: pretty good! BRT does not offer the capacity of light or heavy rail, but is generally cheaper and easier to implement. It can be a "first step" to constructing a more comprehensive transit corridor in an area that needs the ridership.
You can read the actual news article from Trimet, but the article I've linked is some commentary from Jarrett Walker, a well-regarded transportation consultant.
Walker remarks that some of the factors that led to the success of the project include: targeted stop spacing at longer intervals, a 12-minute (rather than 15-minute) frequency, signal priority improvements, pedestrian/sidewalk infrastructure improvements, a dedicated bus lane for part of the route, articulated buses (meaning more capacity), more comfortable bus shelters with real-time display with bus information, and visual distinctiveness.
The buses also have all-door boarding, reducing dwell times at stops and improving average speed. While the buses are diesel-powered, they use a "R99 renewable diesel" which supposedly reduces carbon emissions by 61% from regular diesel fuel. I'm not sure I love this—fixed bus routes are the perfect candidates for battery-electric or catenary ("trackless trolley") service—but it's better than a regular diesel bus, and it's better than driving a car.
Portland, Oregon, USA recently constructed a "bus rapid transit" (BRT) route on Division St, covering a variety of densities and street layouts. The project has so far been a success, offering 20% shorter travel times and a 40% increase in ridership. That's about 520k more annual rides than the previous service, or a total of about 1.8 million: pretty good! BRT does not offer the capacity of light or heavy rail, but is generally cheaper and easier to implement. It can be a "first step" to constructing a more comprehensive transit corridor in an area that needs the ridership.
You can read the actual news article from Trimet, but the article I've linked is some commentary from Jarrett Walker, a well-regarded transportation consultant.
Walker remarks that some of the factors that led to the success of the project include: targeted stop spacing at longer intervals, a 12-minute (rather than 15-minute) frequency, signal priority improvements, pedestrian/sidewalk infrastructure improvements, a dedicated bus lane for part of the route, articulated buses (meaning more capacity), more comfortable bus shelters with real-time display with bus information, and visual distinctiveness.
The buses also have all-door boarding, reducing dwell times at stops and improving average speed. While the buses are diesel-powered, they use a "R99 renewable diesel" which supposedly reduces carbon emissions by 61% from regular diesel fuel. I'm not sure I love this—fixed bus routes are the perfect candidates for battery-electric or catenary ("trackless trolley") service—but it's better than a regular diesel bus, and it's better than driving a car.