The Other Side Of The BRT Coin

Ok, out of fairness to the pro-BRT contingent out there, I thought I'd give equal time to the other side of the debate. Click here to read a report on the advantages of BRT.

Specifically, it covers the performance of Metro's Orange Line between November 2005 and January 2007. It points out that weekday boardings are indeed comparable to, if not higher than, the Gold Line for much of that time. It goes on to talk about attracting many new riders to the Metro system, and how little it cost to get up and running, compared with other lines. But ridership comparisons are not really valid because there's no rail service at all along the route that the Orange Line travels. There's no real way to know if more or fewer people would ride a light rail system in that area. The Orange Line is the only option for passengers, apart from traditional buses. And it seems reasonable that many people fed up with driving will ride whatever system is available, which might explain the high ridership numbers.
It also seems rather obvious that BRT betters light rail in up-front expense, so the table on capital costs is mostly irrelevant. Buses, even bendy ones, cost less to buy, and the roadbeds that they ride on are cheaper to lay and maintain. Fair enough. But the table on comparing operating efficiencies is rather suspicious. There's no telling what figures are included or excluded in those totals. And with fuel costs so wildly variable lately, I'm sure today the figures are much closer between the Orange and Gold lines. (If I can dig up some hard numbers to demonstrate that statement, I will post them in a future blog.)
The report even compares travel time on the Orange Line with the travel time on the Ventura Blvd Metro Rapid Line, where the average speed at various times of the day ranges between 16 and 22 MPH for both. Pretty slick, comparing a bus with a bus. But if you're going to compare BRT with light rail in cost, you might as well extend the comparison to travel speeds. But the report simply leaves that data out. And the difference, according Metro's own timetables, is significant. Both the Orange Line and the Gold Line cover roughly the same distance, about 14 miles. The Gold Line travels that distance 30 minutes; the Orange Line in 43. That makes light rail, at least in the context of this comparison, 50% faster than BRT. Pretty staggering, I say. LA's only subway, the Red Line, gets around even quicker than the Gold Line, traveling about 17 miles in 29 minutes .

The costs to implement light rail is obviously higher than for BRT. Cheaper to operate? Questionable, especially in 2009 dollars. But the snail's pace of the Orange Line compared with the Gold Line is hard to ignore. You can really feel the difference, and I find the Orange Line frustratingly slow. It seems as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. So even though that pro-BRT report shows some impressive data, the comparison runs off the rails (yeah, pun intended) by switching tracks (yup, that one, too), and ignores a significant difference in travel time. I find it hard to believe that

The costs to implement light rail is obviously higher than for BRT. Cheaper to operate? Questionable, especially in 2009 dollars. But the snail's pace of the Orange Line compared with the Gold Line is hard to ignore. You can really feel the difference, and I find the Orange Line frustratingly slow. It seems as with most things in life, you get what you pay for. So even though that pro-BRT report shows some impressive data, the comparison runs off the rails (yeah, pun intended) by switching tracks (yup, that one, too), and ignores a significant difference in travel time. I find it hard to believe that anyone who commutes daily on public transit would approve of expanding BRT in favor of light rail. We should have spent our money wisely the first time. Instead, we kinda blew it.