BRT – UrbanCincy

What can cities do to roll out BRT faster?

The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) introduced its first Metro*Plus route in 2013. This type of service is often described as “bus plus”, meaning that it has some benefits over standard bus service, but is not quite up to the level of true bus rapid transit (BRT).

According to a recent post on Portland Transport, rolling out small, incremental improvements to bus service (as SORTA has done) may be more effective than focusing all effort into a small number of BRT routes. It may also be the best way to improve bus service while minimizing the number of political hurdles:

Don’t focus on “BRT” as a separate product, just focus on bus service improvements. In much of Europe, there is no “BRT”–the standard for basic bus service (at least on corridors) often involves things like greater stop-spacing, offboard fare payment, larger vehicles with all-door boarding, signal priority, and exclusive lanes (though not necessarily for the entire length of the route). […]

In many cases, do these quietly, without much fanfare, and without a big splashy project. Big splashy big-ticket projects are more likely to attract political opposition and political opportunism. As Harry S Truman said, “it’s amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

The dirty truth behind transit park and rides

The dirty truth behind transit park and rides.

Following the decade-long debate over the first phase of the Cincinnati Streetcar, the region seems to be back on-board with the idea of regional transit. Heck, even The Enquirer is hosting regular visioning sessions about regional transit these days. As an updated regional plan is developed, let’s be wary about the purported benefits of large park and ride stations touting their “free” parking. More from streets.mn:

In Minneapolis, we’re lucky to have anything more than a sign at our transit stops. We have plenty of room for improvement for our local service. But we instead choose to binge on ridership growth on the fringe, no matter how much money it costs us to “buy” those riders. Yet there are opportunity costs: For less than the cost of two Maplewood park & rides serving up to (2×580=) 1160 parked cars, we’re building a full Arterial BRT line on Snelling Avenue scheduled to open next year. Those improvements will serve an estimated ridership of 8,700. And, unlike additional parking spaces, these amenities serve all riders (not just the 3,000 new ones). This is 7.5 times more productive than the same investment in parking.

It’s not wise for our transit strategy to attract ridership at all costs by subsidizing car storage. Nor is it fair to transit riders who, by their own choice, pay the same fare but do not consume the same expensive parking spaces.