ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ค. 2022
- This extended length video dives in to the specific features and details that make the Van Ness BRT a success story. Learn more about BRT here: itsmarta.com/brt.aspx
We’re exploring how other cities use bus rapid transit to improve transit service & reliability, while also improving corridor pedestrian safety and driving transit oriented development. Check out the new Van Ness BRT corridor at the SFMTA in San Francisco, which opened April 1.
Learn from SFMTA staff about how San Francisco is prioritizing buses to grow the San Francisco economy, and how bus projects can help meet demands from advocates and riders to deliver transit projects more affordably and quickly.
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 57 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pNhft3YZFRE/mqdefault.jpg)
More public transit everywhere please 😊
When BRT is built RIGHT it can be a “Surface-Subway”. The BRT in Curitiba, Brazil is one of the systems known through the transit world for putting the BRT concept on the map. Unfortunately many BRT quote unquote systems in America is nothing more but a limited stop bus in drag and any golden improvements promised by the scheme are lost to concessions made for the car and the politicians.
Overall it appears San Francisco got it right and I congratulate them for their initial success with their project.
Eh... It's... fine. It cost 80% of a light rail line and provides about 70-80% of the benefit. From that standpoint it's an interesting experiment. But bendy busses are still lower capacity than the smallest, single-car, Muni light rail vehicle. And in literally the most expensive city on the planet with the highest wages, operator costs are a much bigger problem than infrastructure costs.
This was always supposed to be a transitional solution. It has, at best 20 years of operation in it before we have to put the light rail in. BRT can't serve as a replacement to light rail forever in expensive North American labor markets. It's simply too expensive to run BRT unless you have access to an extremely economically depressed non-unionized workforce to drive these things. (Leaving aside the ethical implications.) So we probably should have just bitten the bullet and skipped the BRT transition.
@@TohaBgood2 Yes In the long run the train with always outshine the bus with its ability to carry far more people than a bendy bus could ever do.
As for cost of operation I’m sure before this century is out automation will allow one driver to potentially control multiple buses in platoon formation (even though transit unions will surely be against the idea)
Let’s see if MUNI actually follows thru and one day converts these busways into additional Light Rail lines. Maybe they’ll even go one step and build new subways.
@@DDELE7 You're right about the unions probably killing the whole bus platooning thing. BART is technically 100% automated but they still managed to keep all the staff. So we know how that is going to go.
In part, building this Van Ness line as BRT was a political favor to the bus drivers union. If they had made it light rail they would have only needed a fraction of the drivers. This ensures long term employment for a ton of their people.
@@TohaBgood2 why would platooning buses be useful? It sounds like bus bunching which is bad thing because it messes up frequency
@@weenisw It's a pretty silly idea overall. But if it were a thing, the main use would be to reduce operator salary costs. The most expensive part of a transit operation is usually the staffing. It quickly overtakes infrastructure amortization, especially for comparatively low-investment transit modes like busses and BRT.
This is also a reason why BRT is such a silly idea in the US, and especially in any of the major cities. You end up paying more over time for a crappy system based on busses than you would for a much higher capacity system based on light or even heavy rail.
Los Angeles needs to learn from this. We NEED bus only lanes on our big corridors right away.
Need much more, but it has a few great ones. The Silver Line wins over the rest of 110 most of the day.
@@fatviscount6562 Imagine a network of Silver Line quality BRTs criss crossing LA.
nimesh from LA sent me
Busses are technically more flexible but LRT is a much better experience. The trains are bigger and less rocky. I ride the buses in SF when I have to but it’s a clunky ride with all the stop lights and boarding areas. I end up getting thrown around and it’s hard to take with groceries/packages. Would much rather have a subway. I know it would have cost more but European cities are doing it, and at a much lower cost… we have to find a way to make transit more comfortable and the best choice, not the only choice. I prefer transit but so many people I know in SF would rather just Uber if they had to take a bus. Especially in corporate America.
We’re victims of our own prosperity
In general european cities are much more dense, so implementing any kind of transit is much easier here. Not to mention talking a walk is a viable option if everything is nearby. Just look what Robert Moses and General Motors streetcar conspiracy has done to your country 😵
We're victims of really bad choices our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents made in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. Now subways cost $1 bln per mile, skytrains $500 mln and up per mile, and light rail $100-250 mln per mile. We need to make cities enjoyable again and we need to get construction costs DOWN!
@@t3d3d Well San Francisco proper is about 17-18,000 people per square mile certainly more subway lines would work there!
You can make it double articulated an have decent suspension it helps everyone.
Relative to the last fifty years, this is an upgrade. Relative to the last 100, it's still lagging behind what we had!
Also, for some reason, cost overruns don't stop auto projects from being built, only transit. Hmmmm.
Not really. The streetcars of 100 years ago used to get stuck in car traffic. That's one of the reasons cities foolishly dismantled them
@@rashidkhwaja959 i think they meant in terms of network rather than traffic flow
Also, in the case of the Van Ness BRT, the delays and cost overruns happened because officials decided to replace all the water and sewer pipes under the street before building the BRT lanes... and that work took much longer than expected... sometimes there were ancient pipes that didn't appear on any charts.
BRT and Light rail can both work but what matters most is how intensively the corridor is used, the projected ridership, and how futureproof the system is. Because unlike Light rail, BRT has a rather low capacity limit on its vehicles, which means if its to meet the same demands as a twice as large light rail train every 7 minutes, it's gonna need to run at double the frequency to every 3 or so, employing many more drivers, and cause much more wear and tear to the transitway as is already the norm with buses vs rail.
So the question comes down to the future ridership goals, and if the corridor is suited to handle those demands both now and decades into the future as BRT or not. Because if it's too heavily used, then BRT quickly becomes a bad choice, as we've seen in quite a few European cities, which have had to rip out BRT lines after only 15-20 years in some instances and replace them with Light rail.
Yep! This!
I'd also add that BRT is not economically viable in almost any large North American city. Yes, even in Mexico most cities are simply too expensive to comfortably accommodate BRT.
BRT is a very specific solution to a very specific problem. That problem involves having very low wages but very complicated/high requirements for public debt. In North America we have neither access to low wage labor, not any trouble getting a ton of cheap-ish debt.
This whole idea with shifting infrastructure costs into bus operator costs simply does not make any sense in high wage markets with easy public debt. We need to knock it off or at lease make thorough economic analyses before blindly proposing BRT.
I think BRT is a good proof of concept that can lead to light rail. In most cases, its difficult to convince the city to install light rail directly onto mixed traffic corridors. If BRT has enough ridership and frequency to justify light rail, the city will definitely have more incentive to approve light rail.
Los Angeles built the Orange Line BRT, for $31 million per mile adjusting for inflation to 2022. By contrast, the K Line light rail that opened in 2022 cost $247 million per mile. There are corridors that warrant that kind of traffic. However, considering that when the limited funds for building 1 mile of light rail can build 8 miles of BRT, very few urban corridors in America have the ridership to justify the higher cost of building, and maintaining, light rail.
@@fatviscount6562 The Orange Line BRT is not actual BRT. It is missing the most expensive and most impactful components. It is just an express bus line with some dedicated right of way. That's not what BRT is and it doesn't offer any of the benefits of BRT.
The K line is actual light rail with level boarding, longer trains, and substantial built-in capacity that can be easily expanded further.
You are comparing a glorified express bus with something that approaches a light metro. No @#$$ it will be much more expensive. What you are paying for here is capacity. The "BRT" is maxed out at the capacity of a bendy bus which is less than a single car of the light rail. The K can just add another car and more than triple its capacity over the Orange line.
@@fatviscount6562 buddy you seem to be forgetting something. Notably that about half of the K line is built in expensive underground tunnels (despite running amidst single family suburbs and not needing tunnels to begin with), but these tunnels bring that part of the line up to the same cost as a full on subway! The Orange line doesn't run in a tunnel for any stretch of its route.
In actuality the cost difference is more like 1 mile of light rail for the cost of 3-4 miles of BRT, not 8!
One has to wonder if this at this point is a poltical exercise to try and win over the Clayton county residents who are still very much expecting their light rail.
eventually they'll probably need to upgrade to rail, but in the mean time BRT is a great improvement. Also thank you Atlanta for this great video
Why? Cheaper to just have electric buses
@@asdf3568Rail is cheaper to maintain and can be scaled up to meet demand more easily.
@@asdf3568 depends on ridership. Bus drivers are expensive. If ridership is high enough a train becomes cheaper
@@asdf3568 Busses can be removed at any point or quietly "consolidated" away. Bus frequencies can be reduced beyond any kind of usability.
With rail it is a lot harder to do that. Plus, even the largest bendy bus still carries fewer passengers that the average single car light rail vehicle. There is a very narrow window of rider demand that BRT fits. When demand grows past the bendy busses you're stuck paying a ton for extra bus drivers. With light rail you can just couple another car to your existing vehicles and call it a day.
The point of BRT is to utilize the current infrastructure they already have. The main reason to why they didn't build a rail system on that particular route is because the BRT is just the right size.
Great video however I'm still firmly in the camp where it's better to build something once and in the right way even if it's more expensive and takes slightly longer to build.
I would say that things weren't built that way but look at the transit systems of almost every US city and watch how it's been dismantled. The automobile industry heavily contributed, I'm sure
The differences are not slight at all. Almost every rail project takes 15 years from proposal to first day of service, and in San Francisco, the cost of building one mile of rail is the same as the cost of building 6 miles of BRT. In the vast majority of cases, 6 BRT corridors will serve more people than 1 rail corridor. MUNI director also mentions that these BRT buses have the flexibility of extending the routes beyond the corridor, which the Van Ness buses do, and LRT can't.
Especially when they decide to build a BRT corridor to Alpharetta than just extending the Red Line
isn't MARTA the public transport Agency for Atlanta? Then again, it is good to look at other cities for ideas. I think you guys should look at Brisbane, Australia and its new Metro (Bi-Articulated Electric Bus/Rubber Tyred Tram). Would love to see those run along the medians of the main roads in Atlanta.
Yes it is, and that's why they're doing this as an interview because they want to use this as promotional material for getting something similar done there.
Great to see success, however that street didn’t look that safe at least trought the video. And I would choose a tram over brt any time. But brt is still a huge improvement over not having it.
In what way?
@@jpg3702 crossing two busy lanes of fast moving traffic to reach these bus stops can be scary for pedestrians (even if there is signals to stop cars).
They really should have build raised sidewalks.
@@MasonJarGaming I get it. Yes, as a user of this corridor before and after, I've noted that moving bus stops from the side to the center makes it a little more inaccessible. The islands are a little narrow too. I have noticed people going to the island not using the crosswalks, in other words sneaking across lanes of traffic where there is no crosswalk in order to make a bus. I would wonder if, after some study, they can can tell if this is infrequent and if the time savings of having a thru lane of travel is outweighing the inconvenience of having to wait for the light to change before making your way to bus island. The frequency isn't that hi so I see why people want to dart across traffic in order to not miss the bus.
Van Ness BRT is good, I’ve ridden it. But it’s in the same city as light rail and streetcar corridors that have been in place for literally 100 years or more.
It is a complement (and a fallback actually) to what is already there. Really Muni was slated to run a LRT line that that way but due to cost overruns to the 4th St subway, Muni changed it to BRT instead.
At least TRY to go the LRT method. BRT is just busses on red paint if not done correctly.
Agreed on all points. Plus BRT trades 20-30% reduction in construction costs for a much larger number of busses and bus drivers in operation. This ends up more expensive even after just a decade of running the line. LRT is just too much cheaper to run in the US where we at least try to pay bus drivers a living wage. On a high demand corridor it's just nonsensical to trade a small reduction in building costs for a large increase in operational costs. The original reduction gets wiped out very quickly and you end up paying a lot more.
But I disagree on the money being funneled to the Central Subway. The Geary project had its separate budget and it went over. This has nothing to do with the Central Subway and everything to do with cost overruns. You can argue that if the Geary project had more political pull then it could have raided the Central Subway budget. But that doesn't make sense. The Central Subway was a national scale project. A new subway is a monumental investment in a major American city. A surface line, BRT or light rail, is still a much less important project in the grand scheme of things. It would have been pretty crazy to hobble the Central Subway, which will operate for centuries, for a surface line that will probably have to be redone in 30-40 years anyway. Running a line on the surface will always be less of a permanent solution than a subway and need more maintenance while offering much lower capacity.
I loved the convenience of the buses in San Fransisco when I visited. Wish they'd make BRT or light rail to the north of SF-- there's the SMART train which is good if you're going north or south, but if you want to travel to areas that aren't near those stations, the buses are okay but they often get stuck in traffic.
The problem you had is that SFMTA only runs in San Francisco proper, it doesn't go outside of the city at all. You mention the SMART train which is outside of San Francisco, none of the Muni buses go there, in order to go there you need to take Golden Gate Transit (which also is allowed to use these bus lanes, but isn't part of San Francisco). The proper train that goes into the city barely touches a corner and again isn't SF owned (Caltrain), the subway which goes through the city... like literally one path through it doesn't branch off like subways of other cities again not owned by San Francisco. And ultimately that's the issue with San Francisco's transit is that it only applies to it's own buses and light rail vehicles, you want to do stuff in other counties well need to find which buses from those other counties go there and work from there.
Such a beautiful video. Fixing traffic, noise pollution, environmental pollution, pedestrian safety and making a more complete and equitable street all with a simple solution. A proper BRT.
Wow, San Francisco knows how to build bus rapid transit that isn't a complete JOKE, unlike the Boston MBTA Silver Line and the Cleveland RTA Health Line. Kudos to the SFMTA! 👏👏👏👏👍👍💐 🏆🥇
I am just beginning to learn about MBTA, but it seems much of its problems are result of decades of under investment and deferred maintenance to cook the books.
In the 1990s MUNI was terribly unreliable. They've had to climb back up the hard way, and it still faces a lot of challenges.
I like the way Jeff Tumlin (on this video) runs MUNI. He's not just a CEO, he's also a passenger, unlike his counterparts around San Francisco Bay.
Great project! But if the ridership keeps rising there will be a point after it would actually be cheaper to run this as a streetcar. Because streetcars have a higher capacity per vehicle, and the maintainance is cheaper.
NYC Transit Authority needs to seriously do much better than our current Select Bus Systems. This looks to be more convenient and moves faster.
SBS+ Isn’t even a BRT. It feels more like a regular bus service in disguise.
The fact that electric trolleybuses are running over this corridor now...this should be the standard for any BRT, am I right or am I right?
The Van Ness line was a trolley bus before the BRT Lanes. They are common in SF as they perform much better on the hills than diesel buses.
It would be so nice to see this throughout the whole Bay Area. The lines that have gotten these brt treatment are so convenient.
We have something similar in Oakland, except no one is enforcing the bus-only access so the buses get stuck in traffic just like before...
@@V45194 Cities always need enforcement cameras for bus lanes. I know London has that.
Seems like a good way to test whether a route would be a good candidate for a tram. Try it with buses first, and if it gets a lot of ridership, you know you've got a good candidate for conversion to trams down the line. Of course, whether it would actually graduate from mere candidate status to "time to switch" status is another matter.
To rapid transit. Tram to rapid transit conversion is costly and requires a lot of time hence should be skipped altogether.
Brisbane's new Metro pilot test vehicle is also a good example of combined Rubber tyred Tram/Train and Bus Rapid Transit system. And it is battery-powered, so it is Eco-Friendly. Once the project is fully complete and all the vehicles are rolled out, there will even be flash chargers at the end of every route/line that can charge one whole unit in under 5 minutes. Its design allows it to be expanded anywhere at a lower cost, as it can run on any road, ranging from Bus lanes along a busy road to brand new fully dedicated Transitways and even de-clog existing Transitways by using their right of way. In Brisbane, once complete, the Metro will use existing Transitways (or Busways, as locals refer to them) will focus on going into the city and getting buses out of the city, making more space for pedestrians and Bike infrastructure. In addition, this allows for brand new Circular Bus routes radiating around the city between different suburbs, allowing better connections to both major Bus Station, the existing Queensland Rail System and even the new metro.
I think many U.S. cities can adopt systems similar to Brisbane's new metro, as it is very cheap and easy to convert car based infrastructure and the vehicles can even run on Roads which only require bus priority upgrades.
I (don't) need it.
I (don't) need it.
I neeeeeeeeeeed it!
Seriously, excellent work. Happy to see it and I will be advocating for similar projects in my city. And for people who are die-hard rail advocates, think of it like this: this is a great introductory step to more efficient public transit in a lot of places. If this can become more ubiquitous, there may be greater demand for rail in those areas and even opportunity to transition these BRT routes to rail if it makes sense. I understand if you feel that rail is the best solution, view this as a more intermediate step and once people are happy, then open a dialog about the pros and cons of brt vs rail. It doesn't need to be perfect on day one, this is a process.
Van ness feeling like a city street instead of a highway-lite🔥🔥🔥
gotta love more improvements
Great! Now build the Geary BRT (or better, a new subway), please!!!!
Let's go San Francisco! I love it
I went to South Korea and it basically like this. It was super fast and efficient riding both the bus and light rail or private rail and they interface nicely. I get the cost-effectiveness but I think both are great when planned properly especially it gives people more options as long as it's accessible. I hope Los Angeles can get back to it glory days instead of backtracking when something seems like it's not working when it's really is Location, Location, Location then your supply and demand will come when it comes to transit.
Could get rid of the street parking, move car traffic over to the right, and add a bike lane off of the bus lane on the left side. Or get rid of one lane of traffic in each direction, and the slow down in traffic will convince more people to use the buses / bike lanes.
Love this
I do love the point made by speed of development and cost savings for general road upgrades. It does make BRT and Walkability an appealing alternative to LRT, both with totally different, but nevertheless useful applications.
You forget a mic for one of your interviews
love this
this is amazing. all cities need to copy this
BRT is a little cheaper to build but extremely expensive to operate. Cities with high wages absolutely do not need this mode. It just doesn't make financial sense vs light rail.
I hope more US cities and neighbourhoods will end this terrifying car centric mess that started in 60s! I'm from EUROPE and you guys seem to love your cars, (not judging that) but its good to see some changes in spite of that. Public transport shouldnt be stinky and slow! LOVE ROM EU
fast and frequent gets you basically everything. even low reliability isn't that bad if its 5 minutes for the next bus/tram/train.
I love this. thank you please we need this everywhere. public transport would help climate issues swell.
More videos like this!
Marta could implement some of this community based transit around the Dowtown-Midtown area such as adding a second streetcar from the Sweet Auburn to Ponce City Market
Agree the right choice is specific to each application. Rail is more comfortable, bus is cheaper capital but higher operating expense, etc. - but at the end of the day I care most about improving service. If you can offer short headways, long hours, good coverage, and accessibility, I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I saw a vlogger in China riding in a BRT in shanghai. Their BRT is below the light rail. Bus stop is more frequent than the LRT. They share the same space in the road.
If you like transit, Shanghai is a fun place to visit - they have regular buses, trolleybuses, trolleybuses with on-board batteries that can run about 5 miles off-wire, super capacitor buses, a massive metro system with over 400 stations - and a maglev train going to the airport. Having said that, they still have a LOT of cars.
Good job SF ❤
Is this a sign that Marta will be implementing a lot more Bus only lanes?? Would love to see it! ❤
Don't be fooled by this video. BRT can be a good investment in some places, but almost never in North America. The main point of BRT is to shift some of the higher infrastructure costs of rail into bus operator costs. It's an in-between upgrade step from high ridership bus corridors to light rail. In North America, almost everywhere except the really poor Southern states and some places in Mexico, this just doesn't make sense. Yes, something like light rail will be marginally more expensive, 20-30% more. But light rail vehicles are much higher capacity out of the box and you can always lengthen them by adding a second or third car in the future. The bendy busses, the largest busses you can possibly have, are already lower capacity than a single light rail car, and you can't hook up another bendy bus behind it! Whatever the capacity of the bendy bus is that's the maximum capacity you'll ever get, before eventually upgrading from "rubber tire light rail"/BRT to full light rail.
BRT is a very niche solution for a very niche problem. The vast majority of transit corridors in North America should skip BRT and go straight to light rail. It really doesn't make any sense whatsoever to spend 80% of the cost of light rail and lock yourself into the maximum ridership that BRT can provide with bendy busses. Light rail is a much much better investment in the medium to long term, and yes actually cheaper per rider once it reaches capacity.
Isn't it good to test transit corridors and then upgrade the BRT to light rail once the right of way is established and all infra like overhead wires, stations, etc are established?
@@arnavsrikanth You'd think that. But with BRT costing 70-80% of the cost of light rail, and with bus operator costs overwhelming those original buildout savings, what you get is a loss in the end.
If BRT could be built for 1/5th or at least 1/3rd the cost of light rail, then yes, this would make some sense. But that's not what BRT is. You still need level boarding for BRT. You still need a dedicated right of way. You still need reinforced concrete guideways. BRT is basically light rail on rubber tires. It's extremely expensive for a bus system.
The only way to make BRT work is to keep operator costs down. This is easy to do in cheap labor markets like South America and Asia, but impossible in US metros. The problem is that if you have the necessary passenger capacity for BRT to be viable you also have the costs associated with bus operators.
This is a dead end transit mode for us.
@@TohaBgood2 I noticed that you said BRT makes sense in "the really poor Southern states." We recently opened up a BRT system here in Birmingham, Alabama. Do you think it made sense here? It's actually quite controversial, because our transit agency had to take some operators off regular routes to run it, and that has undermined them. Right now it's difficult to get bus drivers all over America, from what I understand. But we like to think our BRT might play some role in getting people in the region more favorable to transit use in general.
We have one highway here where traffic congestion is super bad, and we think putting more buses on it might help. Not really BRT but just more buses, running every 5 minutes during rush hours. For years I thought we needed light rail there, but just having more buses would do the trick in my opinion. If we could get people to use buses on that corridor, I wouldn't be surprised if there would start to be lots of Transit Oriented Development along it.
Point is, there should be more transit infrastructure of some kind
@@blankface_ Yes, but when you have two modes that serve the exact same function, it's better to choose the more cost effective option. In the case of BRT vs light rail, that is light rail. Since these two are almost identical in terms of their use case, it's better to use the one that is cheaper in the long run even if it is nominally slightly more expensive to build. BRT lives for up to 15-20 years before it needs a major overhaul. In that time, light rail just becomes cheaper than BRT.
That's the point I am trying to make. I understand that BRT is the "hot new thing" in some US transit circles, but it is just too expensive to operate vs light rail if there is any kind of serious demand warranting a higher capacity transit mode to begin with.
Van Ness has needed change for years, and this design is a decent step forward.
Geary needs BRT!
You have dedicated travel lanes, you have signal priority, you have fixed stations, you have catenary wires, just build a damn train instead and provide a transit service which is more efficient and requires less maintenance!
The best thing to do is a well-conected network formed by both, rail and bus, the main problem you have in the US is that the cost of building these proyects are very much expensive than in European or Asian countries.
Hopefully the BRT also have green light priority on the junction so if BRT detected the traffic lights can give priority to go first because it's make sense to prioritise people on buses or light rail because it's carrying more people than car.
What will Muni do to improve Geary Blvd service?
Are these buses converted by MUNI pass ?
@MARTA, can we get this in Atlanta, please?!?!?!?!?!?
This is pretty good, but could be made better. In my opinion there should be 1 general traffic lane in each direction, 1 bus lane in each direction, and 1 good, wide bike lane in each direction. That would be the most efficient use of the 6 lanes.
its also a tourist friendly
I like how they forget to mention that it took 10+ years to paint the road red.
They’ve also gotta build the bus station, and get approvals
Totally incorrect. It didn't take 10 years. It took 27 years.
@@ebeyslough I’m very sorry, I didn’t mean to be imprecise 😂
So when are we getting dedicated bus lanes on Atlanta's arterial roads? I bet many (those stuck waiting on highway curbs, nearly dead restaurants on Buford Highway, tourists) would appreciate a bus lane between Doraville and Lindbergh
Marta, you guys should look at their Salesforce Transit Center as a example for Five Points Station. I know the city is giving yall crap but some like that would be nice. I know your trying to get ready for WorldCup 2026 but i think you should just hold out. Connecting the Station from Peachtree to Ted Turner.
There is no world in which buses are more reliable than a metro or subway system and if you cant figure out why you really shouldnt comment on these kind of issues
*Rail is better than bus.* However, rail is more complicated and expensive to build. Sometimes buses are the right answer, and the *Van Ness BRT Corridor* was probably the right answer. If we could push a magic button and make Van Ness instantly have a great rail line, I'd push that button in a heartbeat.
honestly should of gone for LR because it gives it more of a sense of permanence and is an overall better experience for passengers and can hold more people per vehicle. plus is digital ticketing not common in the us?
Can we please share this with the Culver City's council members, who are trying to vote to remove their dedicated bus/bike lanes on 04/24/23, which are just a few years old?
Please construct in a next phase of this great BRT line just the overhead wires of tram and make them electric trolley buses without heavy batteries!
The benefits from using buses instead or rail in this specific scenario and in most scenarios in North America is just that we've already invested into having cars and street infrastructure so it's easy to convert. Doesn't make bus overall better than train, just easier to convert and who know, this could be a decent transition before we end the use of fossil fuels
What's up with the video? Who edited it? There are huge gaps in the video where a lady is speaking and we hear nothing.
I've used it and its good
That’s awesome! Also would love it if we added PROTECTED bike lanes. We could also add FREE electric Citi Bikes to every block that people can use as long as they register through an app. That way people are biking more 500 mpg instead of Uber or driving. The money spent on this free system could save millions on infrastructure building and saving our roads from rapid wear & tear. And the locked charging/docking stations would be so common and out of the way that I don’t think there would be much vandalism.
I was thinking about this the other day. Imagine how much more connected the USA would be if all the money we spent on our highways was used instead to built a bullet train. This country would be top tier amazing
did the traffic get better?
People were surprised to discover that it did. You didn't have the buses pulling out from stops into traffic mainly.
@@danielcarroll3358 Great! Gonna have to use this as a example for people who think removing car lanes causes more traffic
I ride it several times a week and yes it is faster. The problem now is that many of the stops, especially those from Post to Market are a mess. What kind you ask? Graffiti, smashed glass panels and levels of trash so bad it is just hideous. If you build it, you gotta' be able to maintain it and that is one thing they have not figured out how to do. It is embarrassingly bad some days.
Porque no los dos? 🤷🏼♂️
Better than nothing, but we're past due on getting a decent subway.
Take note Chicago, this is what we COULD'VE had on western or ashland
Light rail ? Future ?!
On the whole, I'm very pleased with this BRT. But why did they go cheap on the shelters? They're too shallow, and it does rain here in SF. The shelters ought to extend out to the edge of the platform. Compare, for example, the stations of this Indianapolis BRT: th-cam.com/video/2iXTCGpxbJw/w-d-xo.html
Bus
5:58 “which is better train or bus?”
Y not both🤷🏽♂️
and all this is STANDARD in most cities in Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands and i guess a lot of European cities too... that's how Public Transport hast to run....
ok so a great idea would be to actually build a metro system that would actually do something great, this is godd but such a major city needs great
good. I want more. export it to every American city.
Except do it with light rail. Traaams
BRT is not a good solution for North America. It relies on very high frequency bus service / a ton of busses to get the full benefit of a dedicated right of way. This means a ton of bus drivers and with how high our wages are, BRT just doesn't make economic sense. If you're building new lanes and boarding islands, not adding rails is just silly.
I understand that a 20-30% reduction in cost compared to light rail looks attractive on paper. But in reality that 20-30% in costs gets recouped via bus driver wages in a decade. It's just not worth it if you want to pay your bus drivers a living wage in a mid-size or large American city.
@@TohaBgood2 I think the goal is a way to truck a bunch of people out of the near suburbs into the city center and back without using the ye ol highways. politicians and the people understand a bus at least and it's a lot easier sell within 1-2 years. Of course the wishy washy-ness of politics will needs public transit to become a bipartisan problem. To speak for Miami suburbs at least the bus system only comes every 30mins.
@@maYTeus Well, that's what I'm saying. BRT is a mini-light rail, but with busses. The whole point is that you build level boarding islands and run a ton of busses. You're trading (slightly) higher infrastructure investment for operator wages. This only makes sense if the operator wages are low, but the city is still dense enough to support a high frequency mode like BRT. That is the case in only a small handful of places in the country.
This just isn't the transit mode for most of us.
American cities need to be more transit-oriented so that transit can be more efficient and effective.
Light rail is smooth and more comfortable, and quality trams just feel like a more luxurious ride than any possible bus. The bus rocks and throws you around.
They have alot of things … except direct assess to the footwalk …!
LRT is better long term. Though for a quick set up bus is certainly faster.
Indonesia BRT is the best
good, now that all the infrastructure is built except for the rail line itself, start building the goddamn rail line. There is now no reason to stray away from rails at this point in this corridor. now, putting the rail line down should be quick and easy.
Funny how Americans are happy with the bare minimum when it comes to public investment of any sort lol
This is a good start. But now that people got used to having that lane closed for the bus, lets close it down for good, and install rail. Light is a much better experience and you can adding more cars. The nice it is, the more people will use it!
We want light rail!
@Andrew C Yep, worth it. At least it’s going to a local project that directly benefits my community.
@Andrew C It only costs more upfront. It saves so much money in mechanical and street maintenance not to mention they're fully electric.
@Andrew C This project only cost 20-30% less than the light rail option. You still need to build the dedicated lanes and boarding islands to make BRT work. Not adding the rails is a bit insane.
The only way that BRT works economically in South America and Asia is by keeping the bus driver wages low and using 2x or 3x more busses than they would use light rail trains for the same capacity. This calculus just doesn't work in any North American cities except maybe some very economically depressed cities in the South.
BRT just isn't the right solution if you want to keep total costs down. There's a reason why the vast majority of rich countries like the US always go for some type of rail instead of BRT.
I hate it that this is more or less anti tram, rather than anti traffic jam. And it ignores the fact that a good network can handle breakdowns of single lines. In a good system, you just walk 500m, and loose only a couple minutes. Then its justifiable to use rails instead of busses.
Surprised the buses aren't electric especially when they know the distance of the route.. Considering so many other cities around the world have large electric bus fleets, its a shame that san francisco being liberal and eco concious and all didn't make the same decision
Its not that bad if the buses are diesel, you're transporting a lot of people for the amount of emission created.
It is electric... when the video was made, they didn't run trolleybusses along there but they are starting to now.
It is insane how people in most technologically advanced country in the world are talking about same-level bus boarding as if it is something extraordinary. US is a weird place...
Its alright. The ones in Brazil are much better.
27 years and $300+ million for 1.4 miles of road. These people have the nerve to come out and brag about this "achievement"
I am a freedom loving American and even though the video sounds nice, I immediately knew there was a catch. There is a reason public transportation is a tool of developing nations, not the richest country on earth.
It is ridiculous that it took such a long time to build the Van Ness bus corridor. So much time and money wasted.
And now, sadly, many of the bus shelters are filthy, and have been vandalized and defaced with graffiti.
These buses look old. They need to buy new ones
The mental gymnastics by some of the MUNI officials here trying to sell Bus over Rail 😂 Don't get me wrong I think they did a very good job on this project, but 9/10 times rail (especially heavy rail) is better than bus. The only advantage of bus over rail is cost.
Not just cost, but also operational flexibility: th-cam.com/video/yC2aMQeCmLQ/w-d-xo.html
Trains, bus, LRT, BRT, HRT, etc. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Not every mode of transport is a "one size fits all" approach; you wouldnt' replace a light rail line with a heavy rail commuter train, would you? It all depends.
@@sayrith you’re absolutely right, they all serve different functions and there are situations that will merit one or the other, buses provide more stops and are important for those last-mile connections . My point is anytime rail is even considered an option, the chances are very high that it would be the ideal choice in a world where money is not an issue.
can't we just have it all? 👀
@@mariomelgarejotorres2318 true I like rail. But system interoperability needs to be considered too. So for this Van Ness Ave stuff, maybe it was easier to keep people on buses. I dont know. Many factors here.
That's a rip off of Transmilenio implemented by Enrique Peñaloza like 21 years ago (~2001).
Most under-served metro ever. Can't even connect to the North bay because there's no train to Marin
Good but TRAM is best!
#RailTransit
Atleast put trams on big main streets. Sounds more like an excuse to not build any permanent infrastructure because it will take space away from cars. If the biggest cities can't do it who will?
Metrobuses are a good solution.