BRT will always fail unless it has completely separated lanes. The reason is that traffic engineers and politicians are simply unwilling to prioritize buses over cars.

BRT is usually nothing more than a bargaining chip to be discarded once a hand has been played. "Well, we won't pay for rail — but we can give you BRT — which is better, 'cause it's cheaper and more 'flexible'". Then the "BRT System" typically degenerates into nothing but some buses running on roads with no special traffic controls, ticketing, or other attributes of BRT. The most successful BRT systems are those in which the vast majority of the infrastructure is isolated from regular traffic completely: Boston, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles.

by Larry on Mar 16, 2012 9:17 am • link • report

note, the new dedicated vs non dedicated ROW issues BRT faces are the same as those faced by streetcars (including the H Street line in DC and Pike Rail in Arlington). The examiner article mainly discussed lower Rockville Pike - there is already heavy rail in that corridor, so the development effects of a streetcar may not be that great. Sounds like an ideal place for BRT. The county and the local developers will have to consider whether the incremental development boost is worth the higher capital costs for all dedicated lanes - 75% dedicated transit lanes can still give transit a time edge, as congestion worsens. I don't see that as such a bad news story.

Were street cars ever in the cards for this route?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 16, 2012 9:18 am • link • report

I think Larry hit the nail on the head. The problem is, BRT lanes as just a 'differently painted lane' or even barrier-separated lane as part of a regular road/highway will always look too tempting to politicians, engineers, and the public as something to be "taken back" for auto traffic, even if purpose-built for BRT!. The rationale would sound like 'Why have that lane over there empty 95% of the time when cars could be using it?'.

by FrankD on Mar 16, 2012 9:28 am • link • report

If you're gonna build it, build it right. I've got nothing against brt, but it should be "real brt", with dedicated lanes, curbside ticketing, etc., like the one it Curitiba, Brazil they keep using as an example. Running some extra buses on existing roads is NOT brt. It's a lie.

by jace on Mar 16, 2012 9:38 am • link • report

@frankd

The shirley bus lanes on I395 were converted to HOV3 a long time ago in response to just such pressures - they are still heavily used by buses and still make bus a very good choice for many. There is no pressure to open up them up to SOV traffic at rush hour (they are already open at non rush hour) or even to convert from HOV3 to HOV2.

@IIUC the proposal for Rockville Pike will still involve the majority of the route being in dedicated lanes. I dont know why having part of the route in non-dedicated lanes makes the route not worthwhile. Based on that you will need to oppose the Columbia Pike street car, the DC street cars, and Crystal City Transitway. And, of course, the express buses on I395 in NoVa.

Note well, I do not support BRT as an all purpose replacement for rail - the combination of rails superiority when large volumes are involved, its superior operational qualities, its greater impact on development, and easier operation underground, makes it preferable in lots of places - and not ONLY heavy rail, but in many places light rail, and even street cars in non-dedicated lanes. But that does not mean BRT makes no sense anywhere, or makes sense ONLY when full top of the line BRT is possible.

Methinks the use of BRT as an ideological tool of the antirail folks has led to a backlash among prorail folks that is not fair to BRT's legitimate advantages.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 16, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

I'm pissed at the park service about denying the permit for the triathlon. They are being unclear about their policy and did not go about this in a good faith way. FWIW, Race for the Cure is also in June on the Mall. Is that being canceled? Doubt it.

by MJ on Mar 16, 2012 10:04 am • link • report

Notwithstanding Montgomery Executive Leggett's self-promotion, his proposed budget does not "buck" a trend -- it continues one. The current year budget (FY 2012) "actually" reflects a 2.2% increase over the previous year (FY 2011) budget.

by Arl Fan on Mar 16, 2012 10:06 am • link • report

So I'm glad that someone has written on the RI Row intersection. I find it strange that they installed a traffic light when it seems like a logical place for a roundabout. It's also strange that there are 3 lanes coming in, one for turning left (into Home Depot), one turning right, and a completely superfluous center lane for not going anywhere (do not enter sign on one-way street from Metro parking garage). It's a perfect candidate for a road diet. The least that could have been done there would be to bring the pedestrian island farther into the intersection. That would have the added benefit of slowing those left-turning drivers that fail to yield to the buses and cars who have the right of way. Also, while the sidewalk coming from the HD lot is great on one side, there is no sidewalk on the other side (where the HD sign is). Trying to get to the bank from the Metro station you either have to walk up the worn dirt path from the HD sign or cross the street, walk on the nice sidewalk, then cross at the top of the entrance to the HD lot, where no car will stop for you, btw, and where there is no crosswalk or you can walk all the way around RI Row to the ramp that comes from the Metro parking garage. Neither is a very attractive option.
A roundabout would have significantly cut the distance pedestrians would have to get across the intersection and slow vehicles to safe speeds. It would also keep traffic moving where the current set up keeps traffic idling at too long lights. Oh, and it would have saved money in equipment cost and maintenance and could have provided more green space in the bargain. I didn't know about this development until just before it started, so I'm not sure why no one brought this up before they began building. Perhaps neighbors just wanted anything there?

by thump on Mar 16, 2012 10:09 am • link • report

Why the pushback from Bowser now? Red top meters were announced more than a month ago.

This change is consistent with changes in other cities like Chicago and LA.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 16, 2012 10:10 am • link • report

Unlike MJ, I'm not pissed. The triathlon is a for-profit event that is far more disruptive to a large part of DC than the race for the cure, which runs around only part of the Mall, and not much of the Tidal Basin, Rock Creek Parkway, Georgetown, and other areas. It also is two weeks later (June 16 rather than June 2).

I don't know what "bad faith" there may have been but these long race events are highly disruptive not only to people who use the Mall but many DC residents who have to avoid great swaths of the city to get around the various road closures.

by ah on Mar 16, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

@ ah--That's definitely a valid point, that the tri (like all long races) is disruptive. However, that's a whole other argument to have.

The issue I'm driving at in this case is the fact that the race has been on the same weekend for the last two years and has faced no problems with the permit. Organizers were given no indication that this year would be any different. The reason I'm saying there is bad faith is because NPS is not giving any reason for denying the permit other than "it's policy". However, it seems to be a rather selective policy that wasn't enforce the last two years. I'd like to know exactly how the race interferes with July 4 prep, but they simply aren't providing any explanation. To me this underscores the larger issue of the NPS having way, way, way too much control over the parks in DC while never having to answer to DC citizens.

I will also note that while the race is indeed a for-profit event, it is a radpidly-growing event that would have attracted between 4 and 5 thousand participants this year. The race was drawing people from far away, people who would've needed hotel rooms, had dinner out, etc. Events like this bring revenue to the city.

by MJ on Mar 16, 2012 11:03 am • link • report

RE: DC Nuked

Their report reads almost verbatim like my project back in grad school, which a few GGW followers were probably around to hear portions of it during a couple semesters. Except I modeled multiple bomb sizes, burst locations (ground-level versus varying heights) and did *much* more on evacuation modeling (which was actually the purpose of the project).

It was fun learning genetic algorithms to test out route choice, availability, access, capacity, movement; combined with emergency response, infrastructure damage, changing traffic conditions/patterns, conflicting paths of evacuees (either from lack of info, desire to go the reverse path for family/friends/pets/objects, or even conflicting emergency responders mixed between getting people out vs containing contamination)...

Though I'll admit that the study has me beat on the weather impacts. I hadn't done environmental modeling for about 5 yrs by that point, so just picked the average wind direction & speed at the time (which ended up being east-northeast) and ran with it.

Since then I've moved right into downtown DC... so good news: living in incineration zone I won't have to worry about evacuation traffic :)

by Bossi on Mar 16, 2012 11:22 am • link • report

@ MJ - Thanks for the additional information. I agree it's curious that it poses a problem this year, but didn't in past years, unless something last year revealed greater problems than anticipated.

FWIW, the Park Service does start putting up barriers for July 4 in early to mid-June, and presumably does other things as well. Not saying the two can't occur together, but prep definitely starts early (and the cherry blossom barriers have been up for several days now).

by ah on Mar 16, 2012 11:33 am • link • report

Re; triathalon - the NPS says the last 2 years the race was allowed with a special waiver. So either the organizers weren't told by the NPS they were getting a waiver (seems doubtful?) or the organizers didn't communicate that detail to triathalon participants.

by Tina on Mar 16, 2012 1:11 pm • link • report

Given all the events that strangle our entire transportation system, I'm happy to see NPS say "no" to something. Things like the "rock-n-roll marathon (DC has nearly zip rock-n-roll hewrtiage or importance) can easily be missed.

by Rich on Mar 16, 2012 3:36 pm • link • report