# L.A.'s Busway Success Story



## WhoozOn1st (Jun 28, 2012)

While far from an advocate of bus transit, I do try to be fair and balanced (which is more than Fox News can say). As part of that effort I'm posting this L.A. Times article that characterizes L.A. Metro's Orange Line, a dedicated rapid busway using an old rail line in the San Fernando Valley, as an unsung success story.

Metro's humdrum workhorse (print edition headline)

"Less than a year after its opening, the Orange Line busway's projected ridership more than tripled to 22,000 a day, and a study by UC Berkeley researchers found it even slightly helped relieve morning traffic on the 101 Freeway, which parallels the busway. By May of this year, daily ridership had climbed to 26,670 on a line that was significantly cheaper to build than it's light-rail counterparts, such as the Blue, Green and Gold lines."

"...comparing costs of rapid bus lines and rail isn't simple, officials say. Rail costs more to build but can be less costly to operate, they say. That's particularly true as ridership grows, they add, because fewer employees can move many more passengers. They also note that some Metro rail routes, notably the Blue Line from downtown L.A. to Long Beach, and the Red Line from downtown L.A. to North Hollywood, carry significantly more riders than the Orange Line."

"There are few remaining places with dedicated rights-of-way, like the old rail corridor that made the Orange Line possible. And, as the controversial Wilshire bus lane project has shown, it's politically difficult to take space away from cars in traffic-clogged corridors.

"'I think we could grow it somewhat,' [L.A. County Supervisor Zev] Yaroslavsky said, noting that Orange Line buses often run so frequently they 'are on top of one another.'

"If the busway's popularity continues to grow, he said, it may need to be converted to a rail line."


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jun 28, 2012)

It is good to see public transit get a boost in general. This story comes at a good time, since the extension up to the Chatsworth Metrolink station opens in two days. I have never ridden this line, but drive across the ROW frequently and multiple buses are always visible. I would not be surprised if the 101 may have gotten slightly better (although only a tiny bit) but that is almost guaranteed to be because of the connection and NoHo (not NoMa, NoHo). Without the connection to the subway, I'm sure that this would not be nearly as successful.


----------



## leemell (Jun 28, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> It is good to see public transit get a boost in general. This story comes at a good time, since the extension up to the Chatsworth Metrolink station opens in two days. I have never ridden this line, but drive across the ROW frequently and multiple buses are always visible. I would not be surprised if the 101 may have gotten slightly better (although only a tiny bit) but that is almost guaranteed to be because of the connection and NoHo (not NoMa, NoHo). Without the connection to the subway, I'm sure that this would not be nearly as successful.


I agree on the Red Line connection issue. I've ridden this a few times and it is super crowded many times in the day.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 1, 2012)

AU readers who follow transit are likely familiar with James E. Moore II. For those who don't, and to refresh memories, he's a rabid anything-but-rail figure whooz carved a niche for himself in SoCal transportation circles as a cheerleader for rubber over steel wheels and general advocate of transit regression. He's used the occasion of the story posted above to launch his latest diatribe. Letter writers' names are usually excised, but Moore is a public figure, with many Op-Ed pieces and other anti-rail documents to his (dis)credit. Copy-pasted to avoid slogging through the other 10 letters published today:

*Letters: In praise of buses*

Re "Metro's humdrum workhorse," June 28

The Times' epiphany about busways should have struck the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (now the Metropolitan Transportation Authority) 30 years ago, but the agency wanted nothing to do with the facts.

Compared to railways, busways are cheaper to build, offer higher vehicle speeds, have lower operating costs, are more flexible because vehicles can get on and off the guideway to collect and distribute riders, and have higher capacity because buses can be safely separated by seconds instead of the minutes needed to separate trains.

The decision to build a rail system in Los Angeles was a triumph of politics. After spending billions, the MTA's ridership hovers at 1985 levels. If we are serious about transit, we should convert rail lines to busways.

_James E. Moore II, __Los Angeles_

_The writer is the director of USC's transportation engineering program._


----------



## George Harris (Jul 1, 2012)

Maybe this guy is the successor to Wendell Cox. Probably time for the torch to be passed to the next generation.

For those who don't know Mr. Cox was the anything but rail guy of several years back, but I havn't heard much out of him for quite a while.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm just wondering, but what is the practical capacity of a BRT line of a given length versus a light rail line and a Metro or commuter rail line?

Let's see...taking the DC Metro, with each car you've got 64-82 seated capacity and 175 total capacity. Assuming an 8-car consist limit, that's 512-656 seated and 1400 total. Assuming a 6-car limit, you're looking at 384-492 seated and 1050 total.

Taking VRE bilevels, you're looking at up to 150/car, all seated (I think), which would translate into 1200 (assuming 8 cars) or 900 (assuming 6 cars), perhaps somewhat less depending on configurations and if you have to have a cab car.

With light rail, your limit tends to be around 200 per vehicle, but some systems are set up for articulated sets of 2-4 vehicles. Still, your capacity is capped off by train length, and from what I can tell, light rail vehicles tend to not be designed for longer consists.

So...what's the limit of a bus service in this context?

Edit: One more thought...is it just me, or is "X service triples ridership projections" getting to feel rather common? The Tide did it, the Lynchburger did it, and now we've got this line to add to the list. I don't know where the SLC light rail line is in the mix, but I know it is smashing projections all over the place...though there, I think they've both started raising projections _and_ got a high enough baseline ridership in place that "tripling" is pretty hard to do.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 2, 2012)

Anderson,

They're already at the limit on the bus service. Almost from the opening day during rush hour those at stops closest to the connection to the Red Line often must allow 2 or 3 buses to go by because they are jam packed. Yes, that does mean that it's popular. But it can be very aggravating when your one of those watching bus after bus go by because they cannot increase capacity on the line. The buses are already running at close together as safely possible and to allow cross traffic over the line.

The only way to increase capacity on the line would be to either close every crossing, a huge expense or convert to light rail. And the later is going to have to happen sooner or later, as the former isn't really viable. And the former only buys some time before the same problem will reoccur.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 2, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Anderson,
> 
> They're already at the limit on the bus service. Almost from the opening day during rush hour those at stops closest to the connection to the Red Line often must allow 2 or 3 buses to go by because they are jam packed. Yes, that does mean that it's popular. But it can be very aggravating when your one of those watching bus after bus go by because they cannot increase capacity on the line. The buses are already running at close together as safely possible and to allow cross traffic over the line.
> 
> The only way to increase capacity on the line would be to either close every crossing, a huge expense or convert to light rail. And the later is going to have to happen sooner or later, as the former isn't really viable. And the former only buys some time before the same problem will reoccur.


Oh, I know they're at capacity. I was more thinking "How much more capacity _does_ light rail get?" than anything.

On the bright side, it seems that there's an existing light rail RoW in place with the busway, so this _should_ be easier to arrange.


----------



## leemell (Jul 2, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Anderson,
> 
> They're already at the limit on the bus service. Almost from the opening day during rush hour those at stops closest to the connection to the Red Line often must allow 2 or 3 buses to go by because they are jam packed. Yes, that does mean that it's popular. But it can be very aggravating when your one of those watching bus after bus go by because they cannot increase capacity on the line. The buses are already running at close together as safely possible and to allow cross traffic over the line.
> 
> The only way to increase capacity on the line would be to either close every crossing, a huge expense or convert to light rail. And the later is going to have to happen sooner or later, as the former isn't really viable. And the former only buys some time before the same problem will reoccur.


They are also running 65' buses with 66 seats.

Edit: correct numbers


----------



## Anderson (Jul 2, 2012)

leemell said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson,
> ...


Alright, there's what I was aiming for. I fully agree that dropping rails in is necessary in the not-too-distant future; I was partly trying to feel out if there was a way to stretch the capacity of the buses by getting longer buses (remember, not all buses are created equal).

Honestly, as a short-term fix (and it looks like it would only be a short-term fix), could double-decker buses be used?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Jul 2, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Alright, there's what I was aiming for. I fully agree that dropping rails in is necessary in the not-too-distant future; I was partly trying to feel out if there was a way to stretch the capacity of the buses by getting longer buses (remember, not all buses are created equal).
> 
> Honestly, as a short-term fix (and it looks like it would only be a short-term fix), could double-decker buses be used?


A typical 60-foot articulated bus will get you a crush load capacity of about 100, give or take. I know some will claim theoretically that you can get 110-120, but having personally stood at bus stops counting passengers getting on a crush-loaded articulated low-floor bus (standing at the windshield, which is technically against federal regulations anyway), on folks with little to no carry-on baggage, the counts tended to top out at 105. That's nowhere near a comfortable ride by anyone's measure, so figure 100 as a practical maximum for calculations.

The LA buses are 65 feet long, so maybe the extra 5 feet buys you a few folks (they also have fancy-designed front ends, which takes up a bit of real estate without providing any useful capacity).

There are double-articulated buses in service in Europe, which run to 75 or 80 feet long. Never been on one, but figure 130-140 people max in one of those.

I don't know much about the capacity of a double-decker bus, but a couple things to consider. First, I don't think there are any articulated double-decker buses (I've never seen/heard of one). So, you wouldn't really be gaining any capacity. Second, double-decker buses tend to have longer dwell times due to the need for people to walk up/down stairs to get on and off of buses. Articulated buses are better from a passenger-flow perspective than double-deckers are. So, even if there were a slight capacity gain (and I'm not sure there would be) on the vehicle itself, that capacity would be lost in terms of actual service implementation due to longer trips.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 2, 2012)

The only reason I see a double-decker working is the amount of traffic flowing to the end of the route. From what I'm reading, it might actually be worthwhile to run some sort of super-express service (i.e. a subset of buses that don't deposit passengers at some stops) or to run convoys.

As to double-articulated buses, that might well be a thought here as well. Adding 1/3 to capacity would probably be worthwhile at this point.

By the way, what _is_ the legal jam on converting the line to light rail? I'm reading that there's _something_ that limits service on the line to either BRT or a deep bore subway.


----------



## leemell (Jul 3, 2012)

Anderson said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


About three years ago the MTA had a 65' bus built, but it appears to be the only one. I don't know why they didn't buy more, but they are running 60' buses, not 65'. My mistake.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> By the way, what _is_ the legal jam on converting the line to light rail? I'm reading that there's _something_ that limits service on the line to either BRT or a deep bore subway.


I recalled that it was mainly San Fernando Valley residents' opposition to any rail option that wasn't a subway that resulted in the BRT Orange Line, but this Wikipedia entry, if accurate, gives a more complete picture of the history:

Orange Line (Los Angeles Metro)

"At the time, then-L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan had suggested some type of 'trench' construction in which to lay the rails to save money and extend the subway trains to Warner Center: 'Some way to get it out of the ground,' Riordan said, referring to a trench's much lower cost to construct compared to deep-burrow tunnel boring machines (TBM), and to address the objections of residents for any elevated line. However, local community groups fiercely opposed such alternatives and, in fact, any rail construction that was not completely underground."

Legislation prohibiting rail was enacted:

"Prior to his 1993 conviction and prison sentence for accepting bribes, California state Senator Alan Robbins introduced a piece of legislation which prohibited the use of the corridor for _any form of rail transit other than a "deep bore subway_ located at least 25 feet below ground." The California Legislature passed it as law in 1991."

On capacities, BRT vs. light and other rail, I once read a fairly detailed treatise online that gave numbers, but I'll be damned if I can find it. This Seattle Transit Blog piece (2008) includes some capacity discussion, and the website might provide a starting point for a better search than I've been able to do...

Why BRT Doesn't Make Sense

"Some BRT advocates will tell you that buses can have exactly the same capacity as rail. They're either uninformed, or they're lying. Even with double-articulated coaches as in Curitiba [brazil, often cited as the model for BRT], you're looking at an 85 foot long vehicle with 57 seats. Curitiba claims they can reach 270 passengers – but at the measure of 6 passengers per square meter standing. With half that standing density, 3 passengers per square meter, our light rail cars carry 200 (with 74 seated). If you went by Curitiba standards, we'd carry more than 325 people per car. These cost about the same amount to operate and maintain – for the sake of discussion, about half the operations cost of a vehicle like this is the fuel, and about half the operator, although that now varies a lot more with the high cost of fuel prices, so my comparison gives buses a slight advantage.

"But wait – we can tack three more vehicles onto a Link train behind the same operator. If we want to add another bus, that means paying another operator, so Link scales to four car trains at some 5/8 the cost – and a full metro can go much higher, with as many as 12 cars. We can also go down to lower headways than the buses can without affecting service quality – the big limiter is the time taken to board, which is a lot lower for four simultaneous light rail cars than four sequential buses, even when the buses have multiple doors. Rail can also offer a very finely tuned interface between vehicle and platform – on new systems, no ramps or lifts are necessary for wheelchair users."

For a non-capacity (in strict terms) comparison of BRT vs. rail there's this grid of other stats, also from Seattle Transit Blog:


----------



## Anderson (Jul 4, 2012)

I'm just wondering, but why hasn't there been some sort of move afoot to rip up the legislation in question? I'd think the Dems might well have the margin to do so even if they lose the votes of a couple of legislators from the region in the process, and somehow I don't see blocking a train as a high-salience issue for voters in the area.

One counterpoint on the loading times: With a properly-designed terminal, you could probably load multiple buses at one time (either by having passengers board at an island between buses, making the boarding area 2-3 buses long, or both). That doesn't remove some limits or reduce your operator costs, but it would at least _appear _to make some capacity-stretching available.


----------



## Chance (Jul 5, 2012)

Some very insightful statistics. If there is one thing I can add, it's that by the MTA's own Environmental Impact Report, it would have taken about 15 minutes less travel time by rapid transit bus then by on this dedicated bus lane.

The rapid transit bus would have traveled down a less crowded, although more centrally located road. So of course, its not exactly apples to apples, although the service area would have been similar. But, the important message is that BRT, at least in this instance, has had no discernible positive impact when compared to any other city bus and when compared to rail.


----------

