BRT FAQ #004: The bus itself

Here’s just about everything you could ever want to know about the wheels on the bus (they go round and round), the wipers on the bus (they go swish swish swish), and everything in between.

August 18, 2015; 3:13 PM • by Ross Catrow

Every day, our readers, our friends, and our countrymen ask questions–to us, to each other, to the City, to the Internet-about Richmond’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit system. One or two times a week, we’re examining one small piece of the BRT with a microscope. As we go, we’ll be compiling an easy-to-read resource for any interested party.

If something new comes up, you think we’ve missed an important component, or you have more data for us, feel free to let us know in the comments or submit a correction (see the options at the bottom of this post). We want to have a complete a picture as possible.

The full list of BRT FAQs will always be available for you to leaf through.

— ∮∮∮ —

I’d like to introduce you to the Gillig 40’ Low Floor BRTPLus CNG:

D6D29B93-5FAC-47DE-940B-389C553BAA0F

As described by the Gillig marketing materials:

This sleek, aerodynamic design incorporates a raised, raked-back front cap blended into a full length, contoured roofline. Its modern profile makes a distinguished statement to your community.

GRTC has a contract with Gillig for 40 of these distinguished guys1, which (unfortunately) will not have a velociraptor painted on the side, but will feature the blue, white, and green GRTC Pulse branding. Apart from a special look-and-feel2, the buses will also come with a stack of features and technology that allow them to zoom about the BRT route as rapidly as possible.3

Most important of all of these features is platform-level boarding4. Each of the BRTPlus’s doors (both on the right side) allow you to walk on without climbing any stairs–thus speeding things up. While this may seem like splitting hairs, think about the last time you climbed up a few stairs on a freaking humid August day in Richmond and then multiply that time by 40 (the capacity of the BRTPlus). That’s some time savings, y’all!

As for some of the nerdier tech:

  • Automatic Vehicle Location System — The current GRTC fleets sports a system by Clever Designs that provides realtime info back to GRTC’s secret mountain lair/control room so they can make important bus-related dispatch descisions. The new BRT buses will be equipped with the same technology, but, as the Systems Engineer Management Plan (PDF) notes, location data transmission rates need to increase 30-fold to be used to influence traffic-signal priority5.
  • Automated Passenger Count System — An infrared technology for counting the number of people on a bus (also by Clever Devices)–which could, depending on how things are set up, influence when a BRT bus gets traffic-signal priority.
  • Automated Annunciation System — You know, kind of like “Stand clear of the closing doors, please.” ADA compliant!
  • On‐board WiFi — Free WiFi! Way more rapid with a way better view than your local coffee shop.

As of 2011, GRTC maintained a fleet of 151 standard buses, of those about 40% are older models of the Gillig Low Floor bus. So these new buses may look a bit familiar, but are fancy, new, and slightly futuristic. They’re not as futuristic as what they’ve got in Metz, France, but they’ll definitely get you to where you’re going rapidly.

More BRT FAQs

  1. The TIGER grant application lists total vehicle costs at $9,605,863. ↩
  2. Unique branding is worth three points on the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy’s BRT Scorecard. ↩
  3. Some of the particulars may changes as GRTC, its partners, and community folks finish nailing down the details. ↩
  4. Worth an entire seven points on the ITD’s scorecard! ↩
  5. Giving these buses traffic-signal priority is one of the ways to hurry them through existing and busy intersections (think Broad & Belvidere). ↩
  • error

    Report an error

Ross Catrow

Founder and publisher of RVANews.

August 18, 2015 3:13 PM · in , , and more 16

Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.

  1. Scott on said:

    Wish they were electric- more solar panels and less pipelines/nuclear!

    BYD Delivers 15 Electric Buses for World’s First Battery Electrified BRT in Malaysia
    06/03/2015
    http://www.byd.com/news/news-285.html

    Siemens eBus & eBRT
    http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/road-solutions/e-bus/pages/ebus-ebrt.aspx

    Transit and Travel Innovations: Electric Bus and Bus Rapid Transit
    2013 San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference
    http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/386

  2. Lydia on said:

    I read that they are wider than the lanes. True? If so, how does that work.
    Also, I never see buses that are filled to capacity so why aren’t some buses smaller? The smaller ones could be used at slower times of day.

  3. Matt on said:

    The nice thing about the BRT in that picture from France and other tram-esque transportation systems is the aesthetic of the vehicle. The Gilligs that we are getting still look like regular buses, without stairs. As a progressive, forward-moving city, why is our brand new transportation system going to look like regular buses that are currently operating?

  4. Scudder Wagg on said:

    Lydia: I know that today the existing bus lane downtown is too narrow for the existing buses and one thing this project is supposed to address is that problem. I’m not sure of the exact lane dimensions that the team is proposing for the improved downtown bus lane, but I do hope that problem is solved. As to the issue of buses not being filled to capacity, it doesn’t make sense to use smaller buses in most cases for a couple of reasons. Typically for many GRTC routes, at some point during the day the route will be carrying a 3/4 to full load for a standard sized bus. Most buses are out on the road for a full 8 hour driver work shift. If you tied to change out buses in the middle of the day, that would incur more wasted time driving back and forth to the bus garage to change vehicles. Furthermore, there are significant cost savings in maintaining a consistent fleet of vehicles of the same type as it simplifies things for mechanics and ordering parts. So swapping out your vehicle size would tend to increase operating and maintenance costs. Additionally, swapping out those vehicles does not save you much money in operating costs. The cost per mile of service is driven in largely by the drivers wage, which rarely varies much by the size of the vehicle. The fuel savings between a standard city bus and the smaller ones you see is not that dramatic and the additional cost of travel to and from the garage that I mentioned previously would likely eat up a lot of the fuel savings. Thus it really only makes sense to run smaller buses when your typical maximum rider load for a route is less than the capacity of the smaller bus.

  5. Ross Catrow on said:

    Matt: GRTC already owns ton of Gillig buses. So these new buses will be fitted with the new technology, but will still be familiar to the existing system (drivers, mechanics, etc). Here’s what the Systems Engineering Management Plan says:

    Since GRTC has selected the GILLIG BRT Plus vehicles, the typical equipment that is installed should be compatible with the existing GRTC fleet. Therefore, this chapter does not provide technology evaluation, but identifies which of these technologies are capable of interfacing with the proposed BRT system. Equipment will most likely be ordered from the current system vendors and installed at the GRTC Transit Operations Center prior to project commissioning.

    Lydia / Scudder: As for lane widths—in the median-running section—the typical lane configuration is three 10-foot driving lanes and a 6-foot parking lane. The new lane configuration will have an 11-foot bus lane, two 10-foot driving lanes, and a 7-foot parking lane. For the curb-running section, you’ll see two 11-foot driving lanes and one 11-foot bus lane. I think the BRTPlus is about 8.5 feet wide, so that extra foot of space will certainly help. You can see all of the proposed street layouts starting on page 15 of the application for Urban Design Committee Review.

    CORRECTION! The BRTPlus buses are 10.5 feet wide, which totally does not leave a ton of room in the lane. Here’s the word direct from the GRTC mouth:

    The industry standard minimum bus width is 10.5 Feet (120 inches, plus 6 inches with mirror wingspan). Two primary vehicular styles were considered – with the ultimate goal of moving as many people as efficiently as possible through this corridor, within this budget and within the ridership projections. Any vehicle considered must be American-made because we are operating with Federal money (this disqualifies any foreign bus makers, and keeps American dollars in American hands). A 60-foot articulated bus and a 40-foot bus were considered. The cost of a 60-foot articulated bus ranges from approximately $750,000 to $1 Million per bus. The cost of a 40-foot bus is approximately $470,000 per bus. An articulated 60-foot bus can have doors on one or both sides with a seating capacity ranging from 46 to 62 seats, depending on the exact design and manufacturer. A 40-foot bus has doors on the right side with a 38 to 41 seating capacity. Custom 40-foot buses could be designed and ordered in America with doors on both sides, but at least 4-8 seats would be lost to accommodate doors on both sides (which is necessary to service both a single median station and also curbside stations). The project design resulting from a 60-foot articulated bus would have an estimated total project cost of $61.8 Million (not within budget). The total project cost for a 40-foot bus is $49.8 Million (within budget). Ridership projections for this first line of BRT in the Greater Richmond Area did not meet the warrant for articulated buses, but with growth in the future, it is possible to incorporate 60-foot articulated buses into the system (the platform design can handle either a 40-foot and/or a 60-foot).

    When a narrower bus (eg. 96 inch NewFlyer is available in 30 FT and 35 FT versions. The aisle is 19 inches wide.) is used, the seat width is narrower (i.e., not conducive for the average American width) and the aisle is narrower (i.e., sideways movement is usually necessary to move up and down the aisle). The mirror-to-mirror wingspan must still be considered, which adds 3” on each side. There are no current narrower buses in American design and production.

  6. Brian on said:

    Been by the bus stop at Willow Lawn lately that is across the street from Jason’s Deli? Everytime I drive by it is pretty trash strewn. Would be a shame to spend all this tax money on newly designed bus stops just to see them turn into pig pens.

  7. Han on said:

    I agree with Matt. There is nothing in the design of the BRT busses that is enticing. They are bland; not sexy. Frankly, I’ve been disappointed that we didn’t opt for light rail or streetcars. It seems we are settling, as is often Richmond’s problem, for a boring substitute that will not encourage people to ride it.

  8. Ross Catrow on said:

    @Han, Light rail would be cool, but it’s insanely expensive. The TIDE in Norfolk cost $43 million PER MILE! Our ENTIRE BRT system will cost $53 million. I almost think city’s will stop building light rail in favor of BRTs.

    Also, if you you want to keep (a small) hope alive for light rail, the Downtown Plan calls for the BRT to be converted to a light rail trolley thing eventually.

  9. Chris on said:

    With the new buses being slightly different than the existing buses in terms of platform loading, has the grtc given any thought to how existing lines will feed the BRT? The BRT is only as good as the network attached to it as few people other than VCU students live on the actual route. The tide and countless other multimodal systems either close couple or directly overlay their local and high speed transit options. The expectation seems to be that everyone will walk to and from the BRT since no real public discussion has addressed how existing lines will connect. I suspect this to be forthcoming, but it seems to be an afterthought when really it should partially contribute to the proposed stop locations. Considering that GRTC opted for dedicated lanes, we could easily fill the unused space between BRT arrivals with local buses. However, that would require a second platform, not shown in any of the renderings, since the old buses are step up/down. I hope the GRTC isn’t planing on building stops on side streets, taking up even more space that is only used for a couple minutes every hour. I also wonder about the wisdom of adding bike racks to the front of the bus. What is the time burden to load and unload a properly secured bike? If capacity is only 2 bikes, why not allow rollon/rolloff of a limited number, similar to some light rails, and only use the racks for extra capacity? Also, do these buses feature onboard fair collection, is it a mixed system of off board tickets and onboard collection, or a full off board system that would provide the fasts passenger exchanges?

  10. Stuart S on said:

    @Ross: “@Han, Light rail would be cool, but it’s insanely expensive. The TIDE in Norfolk cost $43 million PER MILE! Our ENTIRE BRT system will cost $53 million..”
    ****
    Tide Light Rail’s price tag was because most of it operates in separate right of way which HRT had to purchase. Additionally it crosses the Elizabeth River twice on new bridges and has two other elevated sections to carry it over highways and heavy rail RoW. These features increased the price significantly, and *they would have cost the same had HRT chosen to run buses* on the route.

    That system is significantly different from anything ever proposed for Richmond so it is not an accurate proxy for price comparison. Richmond’s rail alternative is an urban tram that would run in existing RoW and would have no bridges. A similar system is Portland Streetcar. The original 4.8 mile loop was constructed in 2001 for $57 million, or about $11.8mil/mi. (That’s $76.8 million and $15.9 million in 2015 dollars.) It’s difficult to say how much The Pulse “BRT” will cost per mile since most of the route will just be a bus driving down an existing street in mixed traffic. So if you count only the 2.4 mile guideway it’s like $23 million per mile. That’s still pretty cheap compared to Cleveland Healthline BRT’s cost of over $29 million per mile.

    From these examples we can see that “BRT” can in fact be significantly more expensive than rail transit. It really depends on the design of each individual system and if you are making comparison you must compare like for like. Mixed traffic operation, separated right of way, bridges, tunnels, stations, everything has to remain constant. And when it does, you find the cost difference isn’t so great after all.

    The trouble with “BRT” is it has a very slippery standard for what can be called “BRT” (that’s why I put it in quotations because it seems to mean whatever the proponents want.) If most of the Pulse route is just a bus driving down an existing street in mixed traffic, how can we call that “rapid transit” and compare it to a grade-separated light rail system? It’s just simply untrue. So when the “BRT” proponents say “our ENTIRE SYSTEM will cost $53mil” you have to realize you get what you pay for: an existing bus driving on an existing street on an existing route.

  11. Stuart S on said:

    So these are a variant of the same buses GRTC already has dressed up with a few tech options. The takeaway is they are not high capacity vehicles like the articulated NABI 60-BRT model used in their marketing materials for years. What a shame/not surprised.

  12. Han on said:

    Stuart S nailed it; my point exactly. I understand the logic regarding LRT but I can’t help but feel this is designed to fail. Its true that, historically, articulated vehicles were used to promote BRT. Now we learn that this won’t be happening. Its time for the city and GRTC to give citizens and potential riders a reason to cheer for Pulse. I want to be excited and believe public transit is important, especially for a city that wants to be world class, however, this design bores me. Its amazing that creative, important ideas such as those mentioned by Chris, are not being presented by GRTC. I sincerely hope Pulse is successful but I’m fearful that it will be a disaster unless we start implementing innovative ideas instead of regurgitating whats been done for 20 years in South America.

  13. Lydia on said:

    Ross, It seems -if what Stuart says about light rail in Norfolk is true – that you have just been parroting GRTC/City press reports. There is a dearth of information in this town and I was hoping RVANews was actually news. Oh well, Stephanie Ganz is always fun to read.

    Maybe comparing Baltimore’s light rail would be more comparable. (Although right of ways needed to purchased and there is at least one bridge.) Wiki only says it was “inexpensive”. The initial line was 22 miles. I lived there when it was new. A big negative: It was quite disruptive to build. Took years for businesses to recover. Pluses: – according to Wiki ridership in 2013 was over 27,000/day. It goes to the airport and the rail station and the stadiums. $1.70/one way ticket. There are free park/ride lots in ‘burbs
    Are there plans to extend BRT -to say… Short Pump? (I wonder how Baltimore City worked with the counties..)

  14. Scudder Wagg on said:

    Stuart, I understand many of your criticism, but you keep getting the numbers wrong. The initial section of the Portland Streetcar was a 4.8 mile, single track, counter clockwise loop that cost $57 million. The equivalent, therefore, for a double-track (i.e. two way) service would be a 2.4 mile length, which brings the actual cost per mile up to $23.8 million, in 2000 dollars. Just basic inflation would bring that to about $32.9 million today. I do agree that it would be nice to have more options for better designed vehicles, but GRTC’s hands are tied by the “Buy America” rules Congress forces on transit agencies and Amtrak. It’s a ridiculous rule when you think about it. The analogous situation for cars would be to say you could only drive on federally funded roads (which includes most major roads) if you bought cars made in America.

  15. Scudder Wagg on said:

    Stuart, I agree that the NABI-60 is a great looking vehicle. But the ridership projections don’t justify an articulated bus right now. Plus, they have stopped making that vehicle and similar vehicles since they were bought out by New Flyer.

  16. Ross Catrow on said:

    @Lydia, Check out the 2008 Richmond Regional Mass Transit Study, page 226, it estimates the cost for both a 17.6 mile BRT and Light Rail route along Broad Street (much longer than what we’re working with for the Pulse) in 2006 dollars:

    BRT construction cost: $54.4 million
    BRT annual operating cost: $4.9 million

    Light rail construction cost: $973 million
    Light rail annual operating cost: $20.7 million

    Note that this study was put together by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, which was made up by a ton of people not associated with GRTC or the City of Richmond.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).

Or report an error instead