Thursday, June 17, 2010

Bus rapid transit in Portland?

One of the interesting tidbits in the recently-published 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, courtesy of Metro, is the revelation that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is being considered for the Powell Boulevard rapid transit corridor. While there are other functioning BRT systems in the Pacific Northwest, including one in Eugene and one in Snohomish County north of Seattle; and Clark County has plans to implement BRT across the river, this would be the first BRT system to go online in Portland itself.

Portland has considered BRT in the past.  Back when the city's first rapid transit line was being planned; BRT was a strong contender.  Light rail was ultimately chosen, and now MAX is up to four lines, with another line scheduled to begin construction in 2011.  More recently, the Lake Oswego transit project considered a BRT solution as an alternative, though that was eventually scaled back to "enhanced bus" (frequent limited-stop service without any infrastructure improvements).  But for now, there isn't any BRT in Portland.

Or is there?  While there is nothing billed as bus rapid transit here in town, there are plenty of examples of "enhanced" bus infrastructure, both present and future.  There's the transit mall; numerous bus lanes and queue jump lanes scattered through town, and the on-the-drawing-board Caruthers Crossing, which will permit busses, light rail, and streetcar to all cross the Willamette River inconvenienced by auto traffic.  But do these things constitute BRT?

The controversy

BRT, of course, has been a source of controversy in the US.  Some transit advocates view BRT as a Trojan Horse, hawked by those who don't wish to spend the money to "do it right"--and some go far as to suggest that it's all a giant plot by the auto-petrochemical complex.  (The rail advocacy site is rather harsh in its assessment of BRT).  Others claim that its useful applications are limited, and note that in many cases, it consists of bus service made to look like rail--so why not build rail instead?  On the other side, depending on the level of service you need, you can often build much more BRT than rail for the same amount of money.  BRT has several specific advantages, including the ability to support trunk lines which operate on a dedicated busway and then branch off onto local surface streets (so-called "open BRT"); and the ability to use local streets to get around obstacles that it would be difficult or expensive to add a dedicated line for.  Two websites engaged in BRT advocacy are here and here.  Anyone interested in BRT would be advised to read this article.  (My own views on the subject have changed a bit, in large part to Jarrett's fine blog). 

What is bus rapid transit, anyway?

Good question.

The term "bus rapid transit" is, unfortunately, a bit of a buzzword.  BRT service can range from local bus lines with less frequent stops and minor enhancements such as signal priority, such as LA's Metro Rapid, all the way up to fully-grade-separated transit lines.  In addition, many services or routes which have BRT properties are not branded as such--so further investigation is in order.

The critical attributes of BRT is that it use busses (ya think?), and that it approximate, in some fashion, "rapid transit".  The term "rapid transit", itself ambiguous, implies some level of service performance which is superior to ordinary mixed-traffic bus service--generally in terms of speed, reliability, and frequency.  Mixed traffic bus service frequently has to make unscheduled stops (for traffic lights, blocked streets, etc)--all of which undermine both speed and reliability; and place operational constraints on frequency.  Thus, any system purporting to be "rapid transit" ought to take steps to avoid times when the bus has to stop for other traffic.  Ways to accomplish this include:
  • Dedicated or enhanced street infrastructure.  This can include full-fledged busways (which may be grade-separated), dedicated bus lanes alongside auto traffic, queue jump lanes, transit malls, green bridges and underground transit tunnels, etc.    All of the "signature" BRT systems--Brisbane, Ottawa, Curitiba, Bogota--have extensive busway networks which segregate busses from other traffic.
  • Bus priority arrangements.  This can be something as simple as laws requiring traffic to yield to busses pulling away from the curb (present in Oregon), to signal priority at intersections, to a proposal Barcelona is considering to use lane control devices to cause motorists to yield to busses like they would yield to an ambulance.  (No, the bus won't be running around town with sirens blaring).  
A second class of improvements is geared to reducing dwell time at scheduled stops, or at least making stop time more predictable:
  • Use of fare collection schemes other than onboard fare collection (which can slow down loading).  Some BRT systems use proof-of-payment (the system used by MAX); a few fully-enclosed BRT systems can use barriers or turnstiles--a feature typically found on subway systems.  One other option is not collecting fares at all.  
  • Use of specialized busses. This can include longer busses with greater numbers of doors--many BRT systems use 60' articulated busses rather than than the smaller 30' and 40' models typically employed for local service.  Some even have doors on both sides, and dual-sided platforms.  Use of larger busses also increases system  capacity; though such busses may have trouble navigating local streets (and in some cases may not be street-legal).
  • Use of dedicated platforms which facilitate level boarding of wheelchairs and the like--the need to use mechanical lifts for boarding disabled passengers can slow things down tremendously.  Dedicated platforms are often necessary for off-board fare collection, unless fare machines are present on-board, or the system is to be limited to passholders.
And two other aspect of BRT which generally needes to be present:  longer stop spacing and frequent all-day service.  All the improvements to the route, the vehicles, and the platforms which you can think of aren't going to dramatically speed up a service that stops every 200 meters or so.  (Conversely, running limited-stop service on local streets is generally useless--the bus will still be frequently stopped for traffic and thus not be "rapid"--so it's better to increase the utility of the service for a small additional time penalty, and make it a local; an exception is express bus service running on highways).  And even a fast and reliable service is of limited use, particularly to those who have the option to drive, if it isn't frequent and available during the majority of the day.  (One reason which express bus--and commuter rail--are not replacements for rapid transit is that these services generally only run during peak commute hours).

Open vs closed?

Distinction is often made between "open" bus rapid transit and "closed" bus rapid transit.  In open systems, there is dedicated bus infrastructure which is used to speed up bus service, generally on some trunk lines.  Ordinary busses will run part of their routes on such infrastructure in limited-stop mode; running other parts of the route in mixed traffic.  In cities with a single important destination, such systems may work better than corridor-based systems such as rail or closed BRT.  Brisbane's BRT operates on this principle.   The primary disadvantage of open BRT is that it limits the ability to further speed up service with specialized rolling stock or optimized platforms or fare collection policies--as the busses also have to serve local routes where the necessary infrastructure for prepayment or dedicated platforms may not exist.

In closed systems, special bus lines run, entirely (or mostly) on dedicated infrastructure.  These systems tend to resemble rail more, as the bus line serves a particular corridor rather than branching out into the wider community.  Closed BRT has the advantage that it can be much more readily optimized for rapid transit applications--as the busses stay on the busway (or if they leave, only call on specific dedicated platforms), there's no need to worry about scaling up to thousands of roadside bus stops which may be no more than a signpost along the road somewhere.

It is entirely possible, of course, to mix the two types of BRT, including on the same infrastructure.  (It may not be possible to mix stops in this manner, but adjacent stops can serve on flavor or another).  Generally, in such a scheme, open BRT routes are branded in the same fashion as non-BRT; whereas closed BRT is branded differently--which leads us to the next topic.


One other common attributed of BRT is branding--how the service is presented to the user.  Many BRT systems are identified differently from ordinary bus service.  In some cases, they are branded in a similar fashion as a city's rail rapid transit (the LACMTA Orange Line and the MBTA Silver Line are two examples; both agencies use route colors for BRT, light rail, and heavy rail metro); or they may have an intermediate brand.  LA, for example, has two BRT systems (the Orange Line, a closed, dedicated-busway system, and the Metro Rapid service, a limited-stop service running in mixed traffic with signal priority); each is branded separately from each other and from ordinary bus service. 

Branding encompasses several things; including the visual design of the busses themselves; how routes are identified, the name of the service. etc.  It can be obvious--vastly different colorschemes and other fanfare; or subtle--attaching an "R" suffix to the route numbers of rapid routes, for instance.  Branding serves several purposes.  Most importantly, it distinguishes different varieties of service from each other--this is especially important if the different services have different fare collection policies, for instance.  Branding, and other cues (such as pricing and amenities) can also be used to signify that a given service is premium, in places where the social acceptability of transit is an issue (such as cities where "ordinary" bus service is seen as a refuge of the poor).  Branding also can serve political goals as well--a "new" bus line may be seen as more desirable to a political sponsor looking to feather his cap, than an extension to an existing service.

Branding isn't strictly necessary, of course.  An entirely open BRT system may do with no BRT-specific branding at all, and treat the infrastructure enhancements as simply parts of the urban fabric, of no particular import; if a bus runs on a busway, or not, it doesn't matter.  Closed BRT systems, especially when different policies are in force, generally need higher levels of branding--so passengers will e.g.  know whether they need to buy a ticket from a machine, or pay the driver at the door, in order to ride a particular bus.

The Portland situation

As noted in the lead section, Portland has quite a bit of dedicated bus (and rail) infrastructure in place.  The transit mall is the signature piece of Portland's bus infrastructure--a high-capacity downtown transitway which effortlessly delivers busses and MAX trains from Union Station to PSU.  There are plenty of other streets with bus lanes--82nd Avenue near Clackamas Town Center, Hawthorne and Madison, etc.  And the "Caruthers Crossing" will provide a near-dedicated bus connection between the the south end of the mall, and important Southeast destinations like Powell Boulevard and the center street bus depot. 

What is essentially missing is long corridors of enhanced bus infrastructure served by frequent, all-day, limited stop service.  While TriMet runs quite a few frequent services (even if "frequent service" isn't as frequent as it used to be) TriMet's bus lines are generally either locals or expresses. 

BRT on Powell

What would a Powell BRT look like?  A lot depends on the budget available, but the Caruthers Crossing would likely be an important part of it.  Between 12th and 39th, it would be difficult to provide dedicated bus lanes without spending a lot of money or doing a lot of violence to the existing neighborhood, so improvements may be limited to signal priority and additional queue jump lanes.  (Keep in mind that Powell--US 26--is an ODOT facility; so removing auto lanes is likely a non-starter).  East of 39th, there is more room to add dedicated bus lanes, as there is a wider median and the various stretches of frontage road (leftovers from the Mount Hood Freeway).  The intersection at SE 82nd (one of the busiest and most hazardous in the city) would provide challenges, as would the interchange with I-205 (and the nearby Green Line). 

East of the freeway is one of TriMet's bus depots, so enhanced bus infrastructure along the corridor could also help reduce the expenses associated with deadheading.  Powell is presently a 2-lane road between I-205 and SE 174th, then widens to 3-4 through lanes east of there.  Going to a full four lanes is probably necessary to support BRT.

What about elsewhere?

Where else in Portland might BRT make sense?  The Barbur corridor is one which might benefit from BRT as opposed to rail.  Like Powell, Barbur has excellent connections to the transit mall.  And whereas Powell is part of the eastside grid, and the #9 bus (the present local service) has numerous parallel routes; Barbur acts more like a trunk line, with numerous routes converging on it to head downtown.  The grades involved in climbing to Burlingame might be problematic for rail, especially in a dense-traffic environment.  If the goal is to provide rapid transit service to outer suburbs like Tualatin or Sherwood, light rail might be more appropriate than BRT due to the distance involved; but a light-rail line serving these communities could also run along OR217 and connect to the the Blue Line in Beaverton (which could also help deal with the WES problem).

A second place where BRT might be beneficial would be a connection between the CRC, when built, and downtown.  As mentioned in this post, I view rapid (or express) bus service to Vancouver as complimentary to the Yellow Line; given that Clark County plans to build BRT, making it easy to extend it into Portland is an obvious thing to do.

Other potential BRT corridors, pulled out of the air, include:
  • TV Highway, possibly continuing into Portland via Beaverton/Hillsdale and Barbur
  • The Hall Boulevard corridor--another WES alternative.
  • A line reaching St. Johns
  • Milwaukie/Clackamas or Milwaukie/Oregon City.  These may be better served with light rail, given the extension of MAX into Milwaukie, but BRT could make sense here as well.
  • Along the downtown eastside, and across either the Broadway or Steel Bridges, completing a downtown "transit loop".
Some final thoughts

A common argument against BRT in the Portland context, and one I'm sure I've made before, is "we have MAX for rapid transit".  That argument, however, isn't really a good one--there are applications where BRT (especially those forms not involving full busways) might make more sense.  We have both streetcar and local bus service serving neighborhood access needs; and we have both commuter rail and express bus providing quick rides to work from far-flung suburbs.  So BRT makes sense, and it's good to see that TriMet appears to be taking it seriously as an option.  Where to put it, and what form it would take, obviously involves more thought than I've put into a blog posting, but it is something that definitely ought not be taken off the table.


  1. Great post. Thank you. One minor thing: the plural of bus is buses.

  2. Firefox's spellchecker thinks so, too, though wiktionary says either is correct (which is what I learned in school).

    To me, "buses" looks like it ought to rhyme with "uses" or "fuses"... but that's just me. Perhaps there's a reason to build tranes instead. :)

  3. Good post. As you analyze Portland corridors, though, keep in mind the Brisbane open-BRT model, where the justification for busway over rail is the extent to which the corridor's travel patterns spread out at the outer end. This is not much the case with Powell, but it is very much the case with Barbur. The desire lines served by Barbur obviously divide at the city limits into a major corridor along I-5 toward Wilsonville and another to Tigard and arguably Sherwood. The ability to serve both of these corridors with the same Barbur facility, along with other possible branching movements such as to PCC Sylvania and Washington Square, is one strong reason to look at BRT and not just light rail there.

    In your long list of possible corridors, you might add St Helens Road. Someday, this largely neglected semi-industrial corridor is going to be the last place in Portland where you can build major TODs without upsetting any neighbors. Life next to Portland's biggest park could also have lots of appeal.

    A low-cost on-street BRT could potentially have a market even if its function was just to link downtown, Montgomery Park area, and St. Johns. Line 17 in this corridor is already the fastest link between St Johns and the city, and it could be made much faster, say by using a bit of I-405 to Vaughn Street rather than 21st Avenue. St Johns strikes me as a major urban renaissance opportunity limited only only by remoteness -- both psychological and actual.

  4. I'd thought about St. Helens Road, actually--it has good access to the mall on the north end, and as you note, is one quick way to get to St. Johns.

    One problem with developing further in the region is that there isn't a lot of buildable land that isn't either a) present industrial use, or too close to same to be desirable; b) part of Forest Park, or c) outside the urban reserves boundary (see here).

    It's entirely possible that industrial uses in the US30 corridor will wane, much as the brewery blocks are now the Pearl District. But given its position on the river (below the Broadway and Steel Bridges--major impediments to large-vessel navigation, and along the BNSF mainline, I would be surprised. Of course, I could see more land close to St. Helens Road reclaimed from heavy industry, with greater concentration of industrial uses along Yeon.

    One other thought on improving transit in the St. Johns areas: Some sort of transit line which stays along the river, serves Swan Island, UP, and then "capping" the Portsmouth railtrench (containing the BNSF mainline) to cross the St. Johns's peninsula; with the cap holding a transit line. If the branchline along the east bank of the Willamette can be reclaimed for transit, so much the better as well (though I expect that is unlikely).

  5. How feasible is an elevated RoW (be it BRT or LRT) on Powell between 12th and 50th (or whereever the former Mt. Hood Freeway land begins)? Perhaps only 1 station would need to be built along this stretch with the station located at 39th. My concern is if they dont go elevated on Powell the only option is a low-end version of BRT... little more than signal priority and branded buses & shelters.

    I have issues with the busway as part of the TriMet Willamette River Bridge... It needs to connect directly into Powell, as planned it just fades out requiring all kinds of zig zagging and back road travel to get to and from the east entrance to the busway. Part of the busway only runs in one direction too.

  6. An elevated structure would probably be difficult to build, if for no other reason than the neighborhood impacts. Els, including elevated busways, are kinda ugly.

    I can see an elevated structure crossing the UPRR tracks (and providing better pedestrian access across the railroad as well), but not much beyond that.

    As Jarrett notes, Powell BRT is probably less important than Barbur as a transit corridor--again because of the grid.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. To think Powell could already have had MAX or BRT already: it's a little-mentioned fact that the Mt. Hood Freeway study included an option for building a depressed, fully grade-separated transitway along the UPRR and either Division or (much better) Powell east to Kelly Butte WITHOUT building any new road capacity. Stations would've been built at 8th and Division, 30th and Powell, 55th and Powell, 84th and Powell as well as 98th and Powell.

    Sure, the option was most likely throwing a bone to certain interest groups (it was likely going to be either build the freeway or build nothing with that project) and it would've had large impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. But Powell is already perceived as a barrier between either sides anyway, and high-capacity transit would work well to improve access in that part of town. We may still have to wait 20 years to see anything substantial built along that corridor.

  9. The Powell transitway proposal was definitely an attempt to throw a bone--it was offered as a last-ditch effort by freeway supporters to salvage the project from its impending defeat. Obviously, it didn't work.

    And while Powell may be perceived as a barrier--a 4-6 lane urban boulevard tends to impede pedestrian movements; there are plenty of safe places to cross it. It's far less of a barrier than an 8-lane freeway would have been, busway or no. Even trenched freeways with overcrossings nearly every block (or elevated freeways constructed on viaducts), with large numbers of pedestrian crossing points, still are disruptive to urban fabric. (I-405 is such an example).

    There was never any proposal on the table for a transitway without building the freeway.

    One other relevant point I should mention. The I-205 transitway, which was installed as a condition of I-205 getting approval from local authorities, was originally conceived of holding a busway. Of course, it eventually was used for light rail--the Green Line south of Gateway, and the Red Line to the north.

  10. Of course, the irony about Powell is that it's available for LRT only because it's wide, and it's wide only because it's Oregon DOT's road, and ODOT and Portland have both continued to optimise it for the car. (Remember, before I-84 was built in the 60s, Powell was the main highway from Portland to Mt. Hood.)

    As a result, the land uses could hardly be worse for transit. I suppose you can redevelop much of it, but that would mean eliminating the last east-west street in SE Portland that really is optimised for cars.

    I expect that idea would raise legitimate fears that taking lanes on Powell and generally slowing Powell down, as LRT would require, would push more traffic onto parallel streets that are trying to be optimised as local-serving, notably Division and Holgate.

    Which would be an interesting battle!

  11. Depends where on Powell you are talking about. Between the river and 39th, Powell has seen a LOT of infill development, and is actually pretty narrow for a regional thoroughfare. Between 39th and 82nd, Powell widens quite a bit (and could support a median busway without knocking down too many buildings)--but it's nothing like sprawlevards such as McLoughlin (south of Milwaukie), Barbur, 82nd, or 122nd. Much of the abutting property is residential in nature, street-facing retail, or mini-strips; not big-box retail. The sidewalks are in fine shape, and there are plenty of signalized crossings. The exception is several malls in the vicinity of 82nd; and that can probably be blamed on 82nd and I-205 rather than on US26.

    The Safeway that sits at the corner of Powell and 39th was redesigned, and now is a street-facing, pedestrian-friendly store with parking underneath. (It still has lots of parking).

    And the interesting thing about Powell is that despite being an ODOT facility, it's still two lanes (one in each direction) from I-205 out to Gresham. The bizarro ramp configuration at the Powell/Division/I-205 interchange complex attempts to shift eastbound Mt. Hood traffic to Division (a county-maintained street), and vice versa; at one point, Division was signed as US26 even though Powell is the ODOT facility.

    Powell's importance as a regional highway has diminished some, as connections between the expressway part of US26 east of Gresham, and I-84, have improved. The other project that may have a significant impact is the proposed Sunrise Corridor, which would eventually provide a limited access highway between Sandy/Boring and Clackamas, parallel to the current OR212; including a freeway from Clackamas to Rock Creek Junction. This project is as yet unfunded, and is likely to face legal challenges were it to advance, but were such a beast to be built, it would severely diminsh Powell's importance as a regional highway.

  12. Re: the Safeway on Chavez (which is 5 blocks from my apartment in Creston-Kenilworth), this thing couldn't possibly get any farther from 'pedestrian friendly', unless your definition of 'pedestrian-friendly' is "motorists obliviously whipping from the underground garage out onto the Chavez Blvd. sidewalk and completely blocking it while they pay attention to nothing but other cars while waiting to turn either right or left, pedestrians be damned whether they're coming off the 9 or the 75 or even just walking out of their building"...

    Also, the parking lot at that very same Safeway hosted an armed carjacking (quite rare here in SE Portland) a couple months back.

    As for the comment(s) above about Powell forming a barrier between neighborhoods --- it wouldn't if the Portland Police would actually take enforcement of the speed limit or pedestrian crossing laws seriously, or ever even consider them at all here for that matter...

  13. Jay,

    The problem of blind accesses to parking garages (and the danger posed to pedestrians) is a common problem in dense urban areas as well. When I walk downtown, I tend to worry more about underground garages more then I do about crossing the street--in the latter case, I have a clear view what's coming.

    And it seems--this is just an observation--that motorists pulling out of the private garages (for apartments and offices), rather than the public pay garages, are the worst offenders--at the pay lots there are paystations to slow drivers down.

    Does the Safeway have any safety features to reduce the problem--mirrors, warning systems when a car pulls out, traffic calming devices?

    Regarding the carjacking--I'd be careful citing that as proof of anything. There was a stabbing on a MAX platform last week--two tough guys decided to rumble, and one got stuck. As is often the case, an incident that would have been ignored by the press were it to occur in a bar or a 7-11 parking lot, got a lot of coverage due to happening on a transit facility. But I ask you--does that incident say anything meaningful about the safety of public transport?

  14. I live over in that neck of the woods too, and the reality is that while it's easy to see pedestrians in the sidewalk, it's impossible to pull out into traffic without blocking the sidewalk.

    To make things worse, the exit from the parking garage is right near the 39th & Powell intersection making it very dangerous for everything other than turning right and heading northbound on 39th. If more than a few cars are stopped at the red light then traffic will block the exit; so you're often blocking the sidewalk while you wait for the green light. ...and let's not even begin to talk about people trying to turn left, or head West on Powell.

    Yes, very difficult for pedestrians at that spot, but primarily because it's difficult for driving.

  15. Oh - and no, there is no form of safety anything at that spot; though it is easy to see the peds.

  16. Any thoughts to preventing left turns on 39th/Chavez from Safeway in that location?

  17. Good point about the carjacking and the MAX stabbing (I didn't hear of that? I've been on sort of a pseudo-vacation this past week, though), however my larger point is that the underground garage, well lighted though it is, still strikes me as something sort of like what Jim Kunstler would call a "rape-o-matic" facility.

    Also, Safeway locks the doors on the sidewalk along SE Chavez near Powell after 9 or 10 PM and forces pedestrians coming off buses at that time (this is where the 75 meets the 9, so there is essentially a bus stop at every corner), or just walking in from the nearby neighborhood on the west side of the store, to enter through the underground garage or from around on the other side of the store, from the still-existing surface parking lot side east of the store.

    As Max said above, there are no audible warnings, mirrors or any safety features whatsoever, besides a painted white 'stop' line just before cars enter the sidewalk. And I can't say I've ever seen a car coming out of that garage do anything other than just zip out of that garage while staring left at oncoming traffic, completely oblivious to (and totally blocking the sidewalk for) the people walking down the sidewalk at them from their right, south down Chavez.

    As for preventing left turns into the store, I'm pretty sure they're already illegal as there is no break in the double yellow line, and though I'm not a police officer I think it's always illegal to turn across solid double yellow lines through two lanes of oncoming traffic. Even if there was a break in the yellow lines, common sense would seem to dictate that this is a bad place to make a left turn.

    I've been requesting a police presence at this intersection (there's also a major problem with the left turn signals on Chavez and cars turning right on red onto Chavez southbound off Powell, who don't seem to notice pedestrians waiting to cross Powell from the SW corner of the intersection due to the delay in the walk signal as a result of the vehicle turning signal - as soon as we get the walk signal and start to cross, the drivers who are now looking left the whole time zip right in front of us) for some time now, but I seem to be the only one and nothing's come of it yet.

    I've had more than one close call in both of the aforementioned situations.

    Sorry if my comment's all over the place here, btw. I TRIED to be clear!


  18. Bit of an update re: left turns off Chavez into the Safeway - I just got back from a walk to the taco truck on Powell at around 33rd (Torres de Morelos, wonderfully authentic tripas and other offal tacos if you're into that sort of thing!), and I specifically took the route past the Safeway just to check out the turn.

    I was wrong on one thing above - the turn from Chavez into the Safeway actually crosses a solid double yellow line against THREE lanes of oncoming traffic (the left turn lane also extends beyond the entrance into the underground Safeway parking lot).

    Again, I'm not a legal expert but I'm pretty sure left turns into (and out of) that garage are already highly illegal. And interestingly enough, just a few blocks further down Chavez there is already a clear legal precedent against making left turns on this street, since you can't turn left at the Chavez / Gladstone intersection.

  19. We have enough buses on Barbur now and the rumbling is bad enough without adding more. Besides, I5 parallels Barbur, so you want bus rapid transit from Tigard to Portland, put it on the freeway. It is a lot faster and gets to the destination quicker. If you want to pick up riders every 5 or 10 blocks, however, and service OHSU, put the light rail on Barbur. We never got a town center as planned at Naito and Barbur (southwest neighborhood plan) so the least we should receive is a way to go to a towncenter to get supplies by light rail.

  20. A BRT solution in the Barbur corridor (which doesn't mean along Barbur itself, necessarily) would probably involve a dedicated busway, at least out to Burlingame or Capitol TC--were that done, it would probably take many busses off of Barbur itself.

  21. I'm from Ottawa, already known for BRT itself. We are planning light rail to replace our example of BRT, the Transitway, which is a success with 200,000 riders and a transit mode share in Ottawa of 20%. But it is nowhere near as good as rail, although I've become more supportive of BRT in recent months.


Keep it clean, please