No, We Don't Need Sexy. But We Do Need Functional.

Bogota's famed BRT system. Credit: Streetsblog

Eric Jaffe had a good piece this morning about the city of Wellington's decision to move forward with bus rapid transit instead of a light rail system to meet its transportation needs. Jaffe makes several good points about the effectiveness of light rail versus BRT systems, the most salient of which is LRT's seeming inability to draw additional factors when service quality is controlled for. From the study quoted by Jaffe:

This suggests that routes with higher service levels are more efficient and attract more ridership than low-service routes, all other things being equal...Results suggest that the transit mode does not directly impact ridership but rather acts through vehicle size and service levels.

I can't say I disagree with the notion that level of service, not mode of transportation, is what drives transit adoption and mode shifting rates. If something will get you where you're going both quickly and reliably, you're more apt to use it. But Jaffe uses this level-of-service straw man to make an argument that BRT can be just as good as light rail and, given its lower capital costs, can be a much more cost effective means of promoting transit.

I get it, BRT is cheaper than light rail. But there's a reason that "true" BRT systems are few and far between, and why none exist in the US even as we've built new light rail systems from LA to Denver to Charlotte. Buses are less sexy, but that's not why they have so many opponents. The simple fact is, it is exceedingly difficult to put into place dedicated infrastructure for buses only. Laying rails forces transportation planners to make decisions regarding rights of way, and that typically means separation of LRT vehicles along most, if not all, of their routes.

Here in New York, we've seen just how effective vocal opponents can be at stripping away the "rapid" features of BRT. SelectBus Service on 1st and 2nd Avenues, for example, utilizes painted lanes, which are shared with right-turning traffic. Further down the M15's route, buses run in mixed traffic, rendering the speed-enhancing bus lanes less effective by placing a large bottleneck in lower Manhattan. The end result is a bus that is slightly faster than a local bus, though mainly by virtue of features - offboard payment, all-door boarding, greater spacing between stops - that could be applied to any local bus route without the buzz or branding of SBS.

This isn't to say New York, or any city for that matter, couldn't implement an effective BRT system. But to make the argument that BRT is just as good as LRT (or heavy rail) because only level of service matters is to completely miss the point. By virtue of building rail, planners are forced to make the tough decisions that BRT planners can set aside. These decisions, such as dedicated rights of way and high quality stations, are exactly what provide the level of service Jaffe discusses. All things being equal, BRT is just as good as light rail. But until planners see the two as equal systems, BRT (and New York's SBS in particular) will continue to be an inferior product.