For other posts on the light rail to Natomas, see category ‘Green Line to the Airport‘. This post culminates (we hope) a series of posts leading up to the question of whether light rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) is the best solution for serving Natomas. We are setting aside the question of whether light rail, or bus for that matter, should go all the way to the airport. Instead, think of this as service from downtown to North Natomas Town Center, which is one of the options presented by SacRT.

The two council members who represent Natomas (Lisa Kaplan, District 1, mostly north Natomas, and Karina Talamantes, District 3, mostly south Natomas) have spoken several times in public questioning light rail, the Green Line, to Natomas, and instead favoring bus rapid transit (BRT). As just one example, Lisa Kaplan at 2:03 in the video for November 28 council meeting said (paraphase), ‘we can’t wait 40 years for light rail, we need bus rapid transit now, and I will contact Henry Li about that’.

STAR would like to say upfront, that there is not that much difference between high quality light rail and high quality bus rapid transit.

Five essential elements put the “rapid” in bus rapid transit:

• Physically separated bus lanes allow buses to avoid congestion;
• Stations and bus lanes aligned to the center of the street to avoid being delayed by turning vehicles and vehicles dropping off passengers or goods;
• Fares collected off the bus, to avoid delays caused by passengers paying on board;
• Boarding from a platform level with the bus floor to make boarding faster, and so that people in wheelchairs or with strollers can roll directly onto the vehicle;
• Turn restrictions and bus priority at intersections to reduce delay at intersections from red signals.

ITDP BRT Planning Guide, 2.1 Defining Rapid Transit Modes, 2.1.1 Defining BRT; https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/master/guide/why-brt/defining-rapid-transit-modes

Physically separated lanes

Both light rail and bus rapid transit need separated lanes to be effective. The more light rail is street-running, the more likely it is to be delayed or even stopped. Dedicated light rail trackways achieve this. The more BRT has to interact with motor vehicle traffic, the more likely it is to be delayed. Red bus lanes or lanes separated by physical barriers achieve this. The proposed light rail design interacts with motor vehicles in short shared left turn lanes, and BRT probably would have a similar design.

Stations and bus lanes aligned to the center of the street

The southern section of light rail, from Garden Hwy to Gateway Park, would be center running. The northern section from Gateway Park to North Natomas Town Center on New Market Drive, would be side-running in its own right-of-way, and center-running on New Market. BRT would very likely be the same.

Fares collected off the bus

When most BRT designs were developed, it was assumed that off-board fare collection was the best way to go. Since that time, no-contact credit card payment systems have started to be available on board rail vehicles, and some buses. Dwell time, the amount of time transit is stopped while people board and pay, is a significant factor in running time, and therefore frequency of service. It is appropriate that cash payment be done off-board, since it is slow, but it may be that card reading payment will not delay boarding. Muni Metro light rail in San Francisco no long allows cash payment, but Clipper Card machines still take cash. People use Clipper Card or electronic payment (Clipper Card on phone or watch), and a few use the Muni app. It does not slow boarding to any significant degree. Underground stations use fare gates and therefore off-board payment.

Boarding from a platform level with the bus floor

SacRT has adopted a design of low-floor boarding for light rail vehicles, but it is NOT level boarding. The design requires deployment of a ramp for wheelchair boarding. It remains to be seen how this will work day-to-day, but every new light rail system in the US has gone to true level boarding. Boarding with mobility devices can significantly increase dwell time at stations if not handled correctly. In the same way that light rail stations can be designed for level boarding, BRT stops can be designed for level boarding. BRT is more likely to have tail end or even in route stations that are street running, so it may be more difficult to have a system with entirely level boarding and buses designed for level boarding.

Turn restrictions and bus priority at intersections

This is a design feature that can be implemented equally well for light rail or BRT, so it is not an argument for one or the other.

Then what are the differences?

Since both light rail and BRT, if designed well, can meet high standards for effective service, what are the differences?

• BRT costs less to construct. There are continuing arguments and even research about how much less. The claims of less than half have been discounted, but a cost differential is real.
• BRT seems to be currently more competitive for federal grants than light rail, though both are being granted.
• BRT can be implemented step-wise, with initial improvements over regular bus service, and increasing improvements over time toward reaching true BRT design. BRT can initially run in regular traffic lanes that are marked with red paint and signed for exclusive use (or less desirably, be part-time BRT), with greater separation added later. Light rail is an all-at-once implementation.
• Light rail has a much greater passenger capacity than BRT. This also means that it is less expensive per passenger to operate, since one light rail driver can move 600 people, whereas one bus driver could move up to 100 or so. It is unclear whether transit to Natomas requires the high capacity of light rail.
• Buses designed specifically for BRT service are more expensive than regular buses, but less expensive than light rail vehicles.
• BRT routes can have non-BRT tail ends or even segments, whereas light rail pretty much needs to be end to end high quality.
• BRT buses can operate in regular traffic lanes of 10 feet, though operators prefer 11 or 12 feet. Light rail vehicles operate in wider areas, at least 12 feet but 14 to 18 feet desired. For new right-of-way, this difference is not a big deal, but when trying to squeeze high quality transit into an existing limited right-of-way, it can make a difference.
• Light rail can be extended beyond terminus stations, and in fact SacRT has done this several times with the existing light rail system. It is somewhat easier to extend BRT incrementally, depending on need and funding.
• Light rail is powered by overhead wires, new BRT by electric or hydrogen powered buses (old BRT is often diesel). Some people find overhead wires objectionable, but STAR does not consider this a valid argument. It should be said that trolley buses, rubber tired buses running under overhead wires, are a highly successful design in San Francisco, but not commonly used other places.
• Light rail would likely use a new bridge over the American River, the Truxel Bridge. BRT could use the same bridge, or it could be routed via I-5 over the American River. The somewhat longer routing along I-5 is not significant to overall travel time for buses, but it does raise the challenge of freeway congestion slowing buses at times.

STAR’s position

STAR does not have a position on light rail or BRT service to Natomas, at this time.

It is likely that BRT-light could be put in place in much less time than light rail, and be improved over time. This is, probably, what the two council members are focused on. They want service now, not decades from now. Selecting BRT for Natomas would require an analysis similar to that in High Capacity Bus Service, but once that is accomplished, BRT would likely move forward faster than light rail. In fact, having two or more BRT projects going at the same time would likely result in cost and time savings for each. The enthusiasm of these two council members, and a renewed interest in BRT for Stockton and other corridors, might get projects moving forward again, overcoming the initiative for Natomas, now stalled for 13 years. The two council members do not sit on the SacRT board.

Please comment. Have we missed key differences between light rail and BRT? What would YOU be more likely to use, or does it matter to you? Is the potential for implementing BRT sooner than light rail a make-or-break for you?

• Green Line to the Airport
• High Capacity Bus Service HCBS