Compared to Other Rapid Transport Modes  See Note at End of Article In some cases, express buses operate in mixed traffic on freeways, and in other cases they operate on busways and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes available to buses and car pools. Even where dedicated busways are constructed, competitive express bus services are far less costly than rail services. A United States Department of Transportation study showed that the capital costs per passenger of such facilities are one-fifth that of rail systems. Moreover, HOV lanes are flexible. They make rapid transport service through car pools available to the now dominant non-downtown employment locations, while reducing traffic congestion. Further, competitive rapid transport can be operated on regional streets through mechanisms such as "red routes," bus priority lanes, and exclusive express bus lanes such as the "key routes" on the streets of Nagoya, Japan. Examples of competitive rapid transport follow:
Brazil: Urban areas in Brazil have been leaders in effectively used competitive rapid transport. Curitaba has developed a busway that carries more than 300,000 riders per day. At peak hour, Curitaba's most highly patronized busway carries more riders (nearly 20,000) than any rail line in the US outside New York City. A busway in Porto Allegre equals Curitaba's peak hour volumes. Sao Paulo is achieving peak hour volumes of 30,000 by providing a central passing lane at stations.
Johannesburg, South Africa: Johannesburg has built an exclusive busway for buses and minibuses between the downtown area and the nation's largest black township, Soweto (with an estimated population of more than 3 million). This facility has improved travel time and made Black-owned entrepreneurial minibus services more attractive to customers. In addition, the city has constructed two major downtown terminals to handle the large volume of minibuses entering the area.
Ottawa: Canada's capital also demonstrates the potential for bus rapid transport. Ottawa's busway is among North America's most successful new rapid transport systems, carrying 200,000 riders daily, and nearly 10,000 per peak hour in the peak direction. Ottawa's busway is non-competitively operated, but it could be provided through competitive tendering at lower, market rates.
Snohomish County, Washington: Community Transit in the Seattle area has established a competitive rapid transport system that achieves the lowest cost per passenger mile of any rapid transport system in the nation. Unit costs dropped 38 percent when public-private competition was established, and ridership has increased by nearly 60 percent. At the same time, overall transport ridership in the Seattle area has declined. More than 70 buses are operated at less than 10 cents per passenger mile -- from 30 to 70 percent less than the most cost effective rail systems in the nation. Incremental capital costs have been small, since the buses use already constructed freeways and HOV lanes. The average speed of operation is 23 miles per hour, which is competitive with that of rapid rail systems.
Houston: Houston's Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) was one of the first agencies in the US to use competitive rapid transport. Further, MTA is using competitive rapid transport to serve suburban employment centers, providing expedited services to a market segment usually unserved by rapid transport. (Even where rail systems serve such centers, their indirect routing through downtown make them unattractive to suburban commuters.) Nearly 100 commuter express buses operate. Costs savings average 24 percent, and costs per passenger mile are less than half that of average rail systems. Buses average 27 miles per hour, relying on Houston's extensive busway and HOV network. Houston's capital costs per mile for busways has averaged less than one-half that of new light rail systems.
San Diego: San Diego's Metropolitan Transit Development Board and San Diego County provide competitive rapid transport service through public-private competition. Operating costs per passenger mile are higher than San Diego's light rail line, but incremental construction costs (unlike light rail) are minimal, because the services operate on general purpose lanes. Speeds average approximately 30 miles per hour, equalling the average of less flexible commuter rail systems.
San Francisco: The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) uses buses to improve access to its rail rapid transport system. When the system was converted to competitive tendering BART's bus operating cost per mile declined by 26 percent. BART customers are able to board buses in communities well beyond rail line terminals and receive expedited travel to rail stations.
Other US Examples: Competitive rapid transport services are also operated on busways and HOV lanes in other communities. For example:
The Shirley Highway Busway/HOV lane in the Washington, DC area carries more than 15,000 people per peak hour in buses (competitive and non-competitive) and car pools -- a volume exceeded by no US urban rail lines outside New York City. These cases also illustrate the ability of busway/HOV facilities to attract passengers. Busway/HOV lanes regularly attract double (or more) the person trips as general purpose freeway lanes. By comparison, new light rail systems achieve peak hour passenger volumes barely comparable to that carried by a single freeway lane. One of the advantages of HOV lanes compared to rail lines is that they improve travel times for car pools. This makes rapid transport service available to people who work outside central business districts. As a result, nearly two-thirds of HOV ridership is in car pools. With government budgets becoming more constrained, extension of rapid transport services throughout low density urban areas can only be achieved through cost effective mechanisms. The experience with bus rapid transport demonstrates its capability in low density urban areas (such in the United States) to provide required levels of mobility at far lower costs.
The Competitive Future of Urban Transport Competitive & Non-Competitive Urban Transport Costs Performance of New U.S. Urban Rail Systems
| ||||||||||
