They usually include (NOT IN GEARY PLAN):
- Off-bus fare collection
- Grade-level entrances
- Sometimes physically separated bus lane.

As for ‘light rail’ costs– I’d like to see numbers to back up your claim that ‘Light Rail’ is less expensive to maintain. When crunching those numbers, be sure to include cost of re-laying tracks every 10-20 years. Or re-routing (hopefully for bike improvements!) and having to tear up and re-lay tracks (something we’re facing on Ocean Ave. currently). Or the specific parts needed for the trains (note BART’s 4 foot, 8 1/2 inch track width = $$$) rather than just, say, tires.

All that said, quality transportation shouldn’t be dictated by costs. Quality should be first and foremost. Also, worth noting: your comment about ‘if LRT gets ridership’– the majority of transportation funding does NOT come from farebox collections, so that will have little impact on any cost estimates. (Besides, all public transit should be free…)

As for the numbers of systems currently in use, this list of 50 projects in N. America (40 in US): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems#North_America shows there are more than a ‘few’ and they are not ‘far away’ (AC Transit 72, for one).

And I think you are making a false dichotomy here- should there be physically separated dedicate bike lanes? Of course. But that doesn’t make BRT or a Seperated Bus Lane an anti-bike/anti-ped position. As for your newish group against BRT, the site you linked to includes some of the top Transportation Experts in the Bay- SPUR, TALC, WalkSF, too… I hope you all are ready for some serious debate with some really smart folks who know their stuff..!

I think the reason LRT is often appealing is a class (and inherently race)-based argument. That ‘poor people’ ride the bus, but rich people take ‘trains’– I think the Embarcadero is a clear example of reinforcing that notion, as well as why the T 3rd was built for all the yuppies moving into the SoMA condos over the next decade… they didn’t want to share a bus with BVHP…

…looking forward to your followup and I hope my input helps in your crafting.

Also, by Tuesday, we’ll see if your theory of electoral impact holds true depending on who wins in Honolulu- the challenger (KobayashI) is proposing an alternative (1/2 the cost) BRT plan to the current Mayor’s ‘Light Rail’ system.

Amen. Let’s make the buses run more efficiently, reliably, etc. But let’s first make pedestrian and bicycle access possible. Once we do that, then we can look at all this incredibly disruptive and expensive stuff. I’ll make some specific policy recommendations in an upcoming post in a day or so - that way people can try to tear about my wacky ideas.

Light Rail costs many times more per mile than BRT

This may be true if we look at just construction costs. Long-term BRT operating expenses are much costlier than LRT - especially if the BRT actually gets some ridership. More on this in a later post.

Light Rail is also not as agile

True, and I plan on dismantling ‘the flexibility argument’ in a future post.

BRT is not being ‘forced upon us’ in SF.

This may just be a matter of opinion or perspective. There is very little ‘anti-BRT’ material available, and with the blessing of the Federal Government and star-struck planners, and few if any real-world operating BRTs in the United States, citizens have nothing to check all these BRT claims against. It’s the word of our betters - the planning population (which has an amazing track record in the U.S.) - against, so far, mostly pro-car people and small merchants who are being told ‘not to worry, everything will be OK.’

I am part of a newish contingent of pro-bicycle, pro-walking, pro-Livable Streets people who see BRT for what it is - an anti-pedestrian, anti-bike transit system with potentially disastrous consequences. After these first few BRTs fail and/or middle-along, we’ll be able to have a more rational discussion of these things, because BRT proponents won’t be able to hide behind the ‘genius’ of far-away BRTs in foreign countries - BRTs that operate under radically different conditions.

BRT is good for bikes

I’ve heard a couple of folks say this, and I remain unconvinced. Even Andy Thornley of the SFBC says he/they support BRT on Geary. The only thing I can make of SFBC support for this BRT - or anyone else who considers themselves bike or walk proponents - is that they think the risk of either doing nothing, or of advocating for real transit (LRT), is doomed to failure, because of initial capital costs, or whatever. But that’s just a guess. The thinking is, I think, that this proposal to build ‘a bus highway within a highway’ is a surefire way to take some private cars off the road - because there will just be less room dedicated to private cars, and that, some people believe, is enough to justify the BRT. I disagree. If any mode of transit should have separated, dedicated lanes, it should be bicycles, of course. I’ll detail this proposal in a post, soon.

As for the BRT-bashing… we have buses– why not make proper signals and get them running more efficiently?

Light Rail costs many times more per mile than BRT- while I agree a world-class transportation system is important, we should be working to reduce cost. (see: GAO numbers in Footnote 1: http://www.bottineaupartnership.org/improving/LRTv.BRT.php )

Light Rail is also not as agile– with the amount of marches, parades, Critical Mass, etc. in this city, Light Rail systems do not provide the necessary re-routing possibilities we need.

BRT is not being ‘forced upon us’ in SF. It’s impossible to please everyone in Urban Planning in a major city but this has gone through all the public planning processes and comment periods and has been fully vetted.

Finally, since this is a bike blog, BRT is good for bikes- improving Muni’s efficiency will hopefully reduce VMT. Especially Geary, so it reduces Richmond folks from driving downtown, or taking the Bay Bridge because they’ll have a quality connection to BART.

BRT will also create dedicated lanes and reduce stops, which means less leapfrogging Muni…

More important is that other mayors from other parties continued expanding TransMilenio after I left. And there are 7 Colombian cities building BRTs at this moment. 22% of TransMilenio users are car owners (21% of Bogota homes own cars) as opposed to practically none of Mexico City subway riders. Mexico City is building 8 BRT lines.

BRT moves more passengers than a tram, at higher speeds and much lower costs. It can be made practically as sexy with public space (including protected bicycleways and parking) a few marketing tools such as color, name and so on.

When buses appeared trams dissappeared and not just because of the bad guys at General Motors and the old story we all know. Buses have many advantages. What is important is HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE A GREAT PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM THAT COVERS A WHOLE CITY given certain investment and operating costs limitations.