BRT proponents' hollow arguments

An article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer from the Cox News Service discusses the apparent advantages of "Bus Rapid Transit" over rail or light rail. BRT is a commuter bus operation that uses a dedicated roadway, with limited stops and no on-board fare collection. The article cites the smaller costs of construction, maintenance and I quote, "BRT can move more commuters with less than a third of the carbon dioxide emissions of light rail and one-sixth those of private cars." Lastly, thearticle cites the successes of BRTs in San Francisco, Adelaide, Australia and Bogota, Colombia (which I've used recently, but which did not really impress me).

I really want to write a letter to the editor about this, but I would appreciate all input from forum readers about the concept.

Thank you
Septa FAN

Somebody should tell the Inquirer that (I think) all of SEPTA's existing heavy rail, light rail (subway-surface trolleys and Routes 100, 101, and 102, plus the Route 15), and regional rail lines and PATCO's high speed line use electric power, which I'm almost definite is more environmentally friendly than buses, including BRT.

Bus rapid transit can be useful in some situations; it is particularly useful in areas that have a moderately high population that is big enough to support more frequent transit service but not big enough to support full-fledged heavy rail service (i.e. a subway or elevated rapid transit rail line). That's a main reason why intermediate-sized cities, like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Kansas City, have found the BRT concept attractive. The key however for BRT to really work is the buses need their own right-of-way and also need to have traffic signal preemption. Ironically, the easiest way for BRT to obtain its own ROW is to use an abandoned rail corridor that still has an intact ROW.

Thank you
This is a well reasoned response. I appreciate your input.
Are there any other perspectives ?
SEPTA FAN

BRT really hasn't worked well at all in Boston. The "Silver Line" often bunches and its bus-only lanes are simply ignored by double-parkers, with absolutely zero enforcement. The bus tunnel works, but buses are limited in speed and there were some early problems with the dual-mode technology.

I just rode the BRT in Pittsburgh. The route I was on, the East Busway, follows the Norfolk Southern ex-Pennsylvania line. It stops at Penn Station and continues into downtown, looping back to the busway.

Pros:

• connects with the Port Authority LRT at Penn Station
• fast
• relatively frequent
• can leave the busway
• avoids surface traffic

Cons:

• extremely loud, inside and out (Neoplan accordion buses)
• crowded
• busway speed limit is 45 mph or so
• stations aren't as convenient as surface buses
• often delayed in downtown traffic