Los Angeles, California - MTA
Metro Rapid

The Metro Rapid example is probably the most similar service to my plan. I would reduce the number of stops first though and invest in signal priority and other infrastructure improvements as funding becomes available. I am also reluctant to maintain local service on any routes except the busiest:

"Key Metro Rapid Attributes:

  • Simple route layout: Makes it easy to find, use and remember
  • Frequent service: Buses arrive as often as every 3-10 minutes during peak commuting times
  • Fewer stops: Stops spaced about a ¾ mile apart, like rail lines, at most major transfer points
  • Level boarding: Low-floor buses speed-up dwell times
  • Bus priority at traffic signals: New technology reduces traffic delay by extending the green light or shortening the red light to help Metro Rapid get through intersections
  • Color-coded buses and stops: Metro Rapid’s distinctive red paint makes it easy to identify Metro Rapid stops and buses
  • Enhanced stations: Metro Rapid stations provide information, lighting, canopies and “Next Trip” displays"

Wilshire/Whittier Corridor:

  • Speeds increased 29%
  • Ridership increased 42%

Ventura Corridor:

  • Speeds increased 23%
  • Ridership increased 27%

Those were the first two corridors in 2002. There are now 20 Metro Rapid routes, with 450 miles of service scheduled by the end of 2008.

Alameda County, California - AC Transit
San Pablo Rapid

The San Pablo Rapid route was modeled on The Metro Rapid due to its success. Travel times on the 72R have been by 26% over the local version, and 17% over the previous limited stop route. The overall ridership in the corridor has increased just 2.6%, but the ridership systemwide has decreased 13%, making the gain more impressive.

Las Vegas, Nevada - CAT
Metropolitan Area Express (MAX)

Yes, that's a bus in the picture to the right, but the 7.5 mile system only cost $20.2 Million ($2.7 Million per mile), compared to $20 Million to $30 Million per mile for light rail. Also consider that 60% of that cost was for the futuristic buses. Results:
  • Travel times are 40% faster than the local route (113)
  • Corridor Ridership increased 40%

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - Port Authority of Allegheny Co.
South, East, West Busways

The Pittsburgh busway system is similar in operations to my Freeway BRT concept, but with a dedicated running way. I would love a dedicated running way if the opportunity presented itself on an abandoned rail line, but my proposal has a much lower capital cost because it uses existing freeway lanes.

South Busway

  • Opening Year: 1977
  • Cost: $115 Million initial
  • Length: 4.3 Miles
  • Routes:14
  • Mainline Stations: 9
  • Weekday Ridership: 9,000
  • Weekday Trips: 446
  • Avg. Riders / Trip: 20.2

East (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) Busway

  • Opening Year: 1983, extended in 2003
  • Cost: $115 Million initial + $68 Million extension
  • Length: 6.8 Miles, extended by 2.3 Miles
  • Routes:34
  • Mainline Stations: 9
  • Weekday Ridership: 25,000
  • Weekday Trips: 869
  • Avg. Riders / Trip: 28.8
  • Development: 53 new developments from 1983-1996

West Busway

  • Opening Year:2000
  • Cost: $258 Million
  • Length: 5.0 Miles
  • Routes: 8
  • Mainline Stations: 6
  • Weekday Ridership: 9,000+
  • Weekday Trips: 362
  • Avg. Riders / Trip: 24.9+
More coming