Vancouver shows how not to handle buses

Vancouver is struggling with new bus lanes because of interference from cars. It's a good lesson for Seattle, which is about to implement bus rapid transit along five corridors.

The congestion means that bus lanes haven't cut travel times. But the city's report notes an improvement: "bus lanes can raise the profile of transit on a corridor and can be a symbol of transit priority."

The question remains why we can't mimic the successful Rapid Ride program in Los Angeles. If you simplify the system and provide frequent service, people will ride.

Comments

[John Niles]

Brad:
While interference between cars and buses is an issue that needs to be addressed in myriad ways (parking control, lane geometry, traffic regulations, signage, signals, enforcement, to name a few tools), there is benefit in buses with other features of "bus rapid transit," including buses that come frequently (low headways), stops at least 1/2 mile apart, fares paid before boarding, real-time information on just how many minutes until the next bus arrives. Better buses require mix and match on many features. Vancouver Translink illustrates faster bus benefits with its three B-Line bus routes on arterials. As fast as a subway? No. Deployable years sooner and for billions less cost? Yes. Buses can be deployed to many places throughout the region, whereas a light rail subway is always limited in its reach.

[brad]

Agreed. I'm all for improving bus service along major routes. I haven't had the chance to try Vancouver's systems myself yet, but they seem like a big step in the right direction. Even if the buses are slowed by traffic, reducing headways will draw riders.