1
Evaluating BRT and LRT in the San Diego’s Mid-Coast Corridor Region
A research proposal submitted to the Urban Studies and Planning Program
University of California, San Diego
Jennifer Chang
USP187
Jwc009@ucsd.edu
January 31st, 2011
Abstract
On July 23rd, 2010, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) reconfirmed
the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. It will extend the already existing Light Rail
Transit (LRT) system from Old Town Transit Center to University City, passing through
major stops such as the University of California, San Diego and University Town Center
(UTC). The purpose of this research is to examine if the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system
is a better alternative form of public transportation than the proposed LRT solution. By
comparing the operation and capital costs, fare, ridership and economic development of
the Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit through transit plans, case studies, surveys
and interviews, I found that not only is the Bus Rapid Transit system more economically
feasible, it is also easier to implement and more flexible than the Light Rail Transit
system. Through these findings, it shows that the Bus Rapid Transit system is indeed a
better alternative method than the trolley extension of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit
Project.
Key terms: bus rapid transit, light rail transit, demographics, economically feasible
Introduction
An efficient and widely used public transit system is one of the main things that our
beautiful city of San Diego desperately lacks. Transit coverage is patchy, service is slow, and the
2
daily use of personal automobiles is considered to be the most efficient way to travel around the
city. The MTS Trolley, serving mainly downtown and Mission Valley, is San Diego’s main
attempt at combating this attitude towards public transit and providing a mode that is
comfortable and user-friendly to the people. SANDAG, the creator of the trolley, is now
planning an expansion along the mid-coast corridor region in order to connect the trolley to the
UCSD/UTC area. Several alternatives to this idea have been proposed, and the goal of this
research is to determine the best way to connect this region to the rest of San Diego’s regional
public transit system. Questions that surfaced: Would ridership needs in the area of the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project be better served by the implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit
system or an expansion of the trolley system? SANDAG has predetermined a single route that
they have planned the expansion for, but this research will look beyond the route at the potential
of a larger and more efficient public transit system.
Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
SANDAG chose to expand the trolley by adding the Mid-Coast Corridor line from
downtown San Diego to UCSD/UTC area, but is it really the best public transit option that the
city of San Diego could have? Could a Bus Rapid Transit system be the better and more feasible
option?
As has been noted by several scholars, a definitive empirical study of the land-use
impacts brought by different modes of mass transportation has yet to be published (Knight and
Trygg 1977, Wright 2003).
Bus rapid transit, or BRT, is more of a collection of best practices learned from public
transit rather than a strict definition (Wright 2003). Although many cities have busways and or
exclusive lanes, the true notion of BRT comes from extensive transportation networks and
3
systems that work cohesively to move people efficiently from one place to the next (Wright
2003). Light rail transit, or LRT, is a relatively new promising concept for moving passengers
around metropolitan areas quickly and efficiently. Like BRT, LRT lines are segregated from the
other means of transportation, which gives them exclusive right-of-way (Wright 2003). However,
LRT is seen as more practical for the wealthier communities.
Because the costs of constructing LRT have spiraled upward, many local officials in
smaller cities began to question the cost-effectiveness of constructing LRT lines (Sislak, 2000).
In Sislak’s research, he stated that “Bus rapid transit (BRT) may be a rational and cost-effective
way to implement significant transit improvements in smaller cities, and it may cost 40 to 70
percent less than current LRT construction estimates” (Sislak, 2000). Without sacrificing on
efficiency or comfort, BRT systems can be as effective in attracting passengers as heavy and
light rail (Currie 2005).
The question of permanence also plays an important role in the decision between BRT
and LRT. Although the BRT system is not as permanent as rail systems, it can actually work as
an advantage. Rather than locking into a 40 year system, BRT systems are afforded the
opportunity to have vehicle technology amortized over shorter time periods more typical of the
12-year average life span. Thus, changes in amenities, safety, accessibility, propulsion system
efficiency and cleanliness, and other features can be updated on a more meaningful and more
frequent basis (Polzin, Baltes 2002). The non-permanent nature of the BRT system also makes
changing routes and adding new transit stops easier than the LRT system, giving BRT system the
ability to provide a closer and more sufficient destination-to-destination service for its riders. The
resulting flexibility makes BRT a candidate for consideration in many rapid transit applications.
The flexibility is especially important in North America with its wide diversity of urban land
4
development patterns and modest capacity requirements (Levinson, Zimmerman, Clinger,
Rutherford 2002).
Light rail transit (LRT) theoretically offers greater capacity. But experience has shown
that not only can busways carry just as many passengers, they actually can carry more riders per
mile of guideway because busways can be shorter in length and still provide a good level of
service (Biehler 1989).
Not only can BRT carry the same amount of capacity, if not more than LRT, the research
by O’Sullivan strongly indicates that people walk farther to reach an LRT station than a bus stop.
Using bus walking standards would result in an underestimate of LRT walking distances by
about half (O’Sullivan 1996). By using BRT, it could help attract commuters from single
occupancy vehicles, ultimately contributing to a reduction in traffic congestion on the corridor
where it is implemented (Miller, Buckley 2000). Buckley and Miller states that Bus Rapid
Transit also has the potential to have significant benefits in such roadway transportation problem
areas as safety, air quality, and fuel consumption. “It could provide the opportunity for improved
transit services to serve the needs of people and markets other than automobile owners and
drivers” (Miller, Buckley 2000).
A Bus Rapid Transit system has so many advantages as a public transit system. If BRT
benefits cities such as San Diego, it will also benefit other American cities that are in the same
condition.
Research Strategy
In order to determine if the Bus Rapid Transit system is a more suitable public
transportation system for the Mid-Coast Corridor Region than the trolley expansion, I broke
down my research into four main categories.
5
1. How does a BRT system operate differently from a Trolley system?
2. Is there a precedent support picking BRT over the trolley?
3. Does transportation demand in area of the planned North San Diego trolley expansion
support the conclusion that BRT will be a better choice than the trolley?
4. Is BRT a more economically feasible option than the trolley for the study area?
To answer these questions, my research utilized a number of different sources of information,
both qualitative and quantitative. I compared between the operation costs and capital costs of the
Bus Rapid Transit system and the Light Rail Transit system. Since our state is on a tight budget
due to the recession of the economy, the overall cost of each system became an important
deciding factor on the implementation of such project.
The demographics of the study area are also important deciding factors. I utilized Census
Data from the American FactFinder database to look at age, income, car ownership, travel time
and population density of the selected region and the city of San Diego. The factors of household
income, age and car ownership are especially critical to consider when planning and deciding on
a public transit system. Age is an important factor because a large portion of public transit users
are youth, students and seniors, due to the fact that these groups contain the largest numbers of
people unable to drive. Car ownership is also an important factor because people without a car
are much more reliant on public transportation than those with a private vehicle. Household
income is another important factor for consideration because many people who are in poverty
can only afford to travel by using public systems. By looking at all these data, I was able to pinpoint the ridership need of the Mid-Coast Corridor Region and have a more thorough analysis on
which transportation system, BRT or the trolley expansion, will be the better choice for this
selected region. I also utilized Geographic Information System (GIS) to provide maps of these
factors in order to have a better visual presentation on the demographics of the study area.
6
I used evaluations and quantitative data from a number of case studies on BRT and LRT
systems published in the last ten years. The case study of BRT often cited as most comparable to
San Diego is that of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Brisbane is a metropolitan area of 2.25
million people, similarly to San Diego with a population of approximately 3 million; in addition,
the city has a similar layout and similar land use patterns to San Diego (Hoffman 45). Another
important case study is The City of Los Angeles. It is a unique case study because it has both
light rail systems and bus rapid transit systems. The people of Los Angeles have similar attitudes
towards public transit and private automobiles as the residents of San Diego, and although the
LA region is much larger than San Diego, both have very spread out land use and multiple
centers, thus making it a good case study.
OPERATION &
CAPITAL COST
RIDERSHIP
FARE
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
I looked at the SANDAG’s
Mid-Coast Corridor Region
Transit Plan and United
States General Accounting
Office.
I looked at the Census data,
SANDAG’s Mid-Coast
Corridor Region Transit
Plan and already existing
data on the Trolley system
in San Diego.
I looked at the already
existing Trolley system in
San Diego.
I looked at the i-15 bus
rapid transit plan and the
Bus Rapid Transit
Guideline
I looked at the Census data,
Bus Rapid Transit
Guideline and the Case
Studies of Brisbane,
Australia and Los Angeles,
California.
I looked at the Case Study
in Los Angeles, California,
the i-15 bus rapid transit
plan and MTS Fares and
Day passes from the
SDMTS website.
7
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
I looked at the SANDAG’s
Mid-Coast Corridor Region
Transit Plan, the already
existing data on the Trolley
system in San Diego and
other researches and articles
on the LRT system.
I looked at Alan Hoffman’s
“Advanced Network
Planning for Bus Rapid
Transit”, the Case Study of
Los Angeles, California,
United States General
Accounting Office and
other researches and
articles on the BRT system.
Lastly, I conducted interviews with Caltrans District 11 Project Management Director
Joel Haven, SANDAG Mid-coast Corridor Project Development Program Manager Leslie
Blanda and author of the San Diego FastPlan Alan Hoffman for additional information on the
Trolley and Bus Rapid Transit system.
Findings and Analysis
Case Study: BRT in Brisbane, Australia
The case study of BRT often cited as most comparable to San Diego is that of Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia. Brisbane is a metropolitan area of 2.25 million people, similarly to San
Diego with a population of approximately 3 million; in addition, the city has a similar layout and
similar land use patterns to San Diego (Hoffman 45). Brisbane’s Southeast Busway opened in
April 2001. By 2002, patronage on core bus services was up by 45% compared to the year
previous to its opening. Property values along the busways have also risen substantially since the
system’s opening, despite the fact that property values have not risen anywhere else in the city
during the same period (Wright 10).
One of the central features of Brisbane’s BRT system is the development of a network of
grade-separated “Quickways” (Hoffman 29). These, much like the tracks of a light rail system,
8
allow the bus to operate in its own, separate lane, unhindered by traffic that may occur in normal
vehicle lanes. Previous to implementing its BRT system, Brisbane also had a commuter rail
system that operated in a similar way to light rail. Although this system served to bring people
into and out of the city, many people who lived between stations and outside of the city did not
have effective access to the rail system (Hoffman 30).
Aside from grade-separated Quickways, there are many other elements of Brisbane’s
system that attract ridership and allow for efficiency. Much effort has been put into creating high
quality stations that give a ‘first class’ feel and allow for quick and easy transfers. Intelligent
transportation systems such as sophisticated traffic signaling and passenger information systems
are also used. There are several types of services within the bus system: spine services, which
operate frequently and stop at all stops, CityXpress services, which offer express buses from the
outside of the city to the core, and Rockets, which are similar to CityXpress except operate on a
more direct route to the city core and then stop at major office buildings (Hoffman 40).
One of the key elements of a successful BRT system is flexibility, which Brisbane’s
system has taken full advantage of. In growing areas, BRT services can change over time,
moving into new neighborhoods or centers. In established cities, BRT services can evolve as the
system begins to attract additional types of users. Like rail transit stations, BRT stations are fixed
infrastructure, offering the stability needed for transit oriented development, and the flexibility of
routes that can adjust over time to better serve the population.
Case Study: BRT vs. Light Rail in Los Angeles
The City of Los Angeles is unique in the United States because it has both light rail
systems and bus rapid transit systems. The people of Los Angeles have similar attitudes towards
9
public transit and private automobiles as the residents of San Diego, and although the LA region
is much larger than San Diego, both have very spread out land use and multiple centers, thus
making it a good case study.
LA has implemented two different types of BRT: Metro Rapid and the Orange Line.
Metro Rapid relies on simplified route design and signal priority in order to reduce travel times;
buses are frequent and stations are widely separated. Metro Rapid runs along Wilshire Boulevard
and Ventura Boulevard, both extremely dense areas. In addition, Metro Rapid also offers a
‘super express’ service, a bus that only stops at every 4-5 stops (Hoffman 53). Travel times were
reduced by 29% and overall ridership rose by a substantial amount (GAO 27). In fact, the
Wilshire-Whittier line is the busiest BRT line in the United States, carrying an average of 32,500
passengers per day, which is more than LA’s Blue Line Light Rail which carries an average of
29,000 passengers per day and has the highest ridership of any LRT line in the United States
(GAO 26).
The Orange Line, on the other hand, uses grade-separated corridors and is a full attempt
to replicate a light rail-style service using buses. It parallels Ventura Boulevard in an abandoned
rail corridor and carries an average of 23,814 passengers per day, which greatly exceeds the Gold
Line LRT. The Orange Line brands itself as a rapid bus; it uses off-board fare collection, express
bus service, Intelligent Transportation Systems to let passengers know when the next bus is
arriving, and signal priority at traffic crossings.
LA provides a perfect example of how the flexibility of BRT is advantageous over the
permanency of LRT: the western portion of the LA Light Rail Green Line was built to provide
mass transit to workers in the defense production industry, but by the time the line had opened,
10
the facility had closed (GAO 28). In addition, the operating costs of BRT are much lower than
LRT in Los Angeles: in 1999, for one vehicle revenue mile LRT cost $13.72, while BRT cost
only $3.95. Per revenue hour, LRT cost $434 and BRT cost only $56 (GAO 22). The capital cost
for Blue Line LRT in LA cost $43.39 million per mile to build, while BRT cost $11.57 million
per mile. The cost of each system, whether it is a Bus Rapid Transit or a Light Rail Transit, is an
important deciding factor when cities and neighborhoods are trying to implement a new transit
system.
Funding
Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit are both funded by the Federal Transit
Authority (FTA). Under FTA, the primary program that funds the construction of new transit
systems or improvements of existing systems is the Federal Transit New Start Program. After
passing the Transportation Equality Act for 21st Century, $6 billion dollars of funding are
guaranteed for New Start transit projects over the next six years; however not only is Bus Rapid
Transit competing with Light Rail Transit over funding, it is also competing against Heavy Rail
and Commuter Railroad. Federal Transit Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program also provides
funding to both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit projects, while Bus Capital Program
only provide funding for bus related projects and improvements.
Capital Costs
The capital cost of Bus Rapid Transit includes cost of roadway (bus ways or bus-HOV
lanes), station structures, park-and-ride facilities, communications, improved traffic signal
systems, and vehicles. The capital cost of Light Rail Transit includes stations, structures, signal
systems, power systems, utility relocation, right-of-way, maintenance facilities, transit vehicles,
11
and project oversight. On average, the capital cost per mile for Bus Rapid Transit bus ways is
$13.5 million dollars, Bus Rapid Transit bus-HOV lanes is $9 million dollars, and Bus Rapid
Transit arterial streets is $680,000 dollars; the average capital cost per mile for Light Rail Transit
is $34.8 million dollars. When comparing between the three different types of Bus Rapid
Transits and Light Rail Transit, the capital costs for Bus Rapid Transits are all significantly
lower than Light Rail Transit on a cost-per-mile basis.
FIG 1
Capital Cost Per Mile for Light Rail and Bus Rapid
Transit
Dollars in millions
34.79
13.49
8.97
0.68
Light Rail
Busways
Bus on HOV Lanes
Bus on Arterial
Operating Costs
However, when comparing between the operating costs of Bus Rapid Transit and Light
Rail Transit, the results varied. There are three categories under operating costs, cost per vehicle
per hour, cost per vehicle revenue per mile, and cost per passenger trip. The operating cost of
Bus Rapid Transit includes driver’s salaries, fuel, vehicle maintenance, bus way or HOV lane
maintenance, daily enforcement, and lane restrictions. The operating cost of Light Rail Transit
12
includes driver’s salaries, electricity, vehicle maintenance, track systems maintenance, repair
facility, and specialized maintenance staff. According to the United States General Accounting
Office (GAO), Bus Rapid Transit had lower cost per vehicle per hour in five out of the six cities
that were studied; Bus Rapid Transit had lower cost per vehicle per mile in all six cities; and four
out of six cities had lower cost per passenger trip from Bus Rapid Transit than Light Rail Transit.
Because both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit can have different routes, tracks, amount
of ridership, and types of services or systems in different cities, they can all affect the total cost
of each individual project, which explains the mixed results in operating costs.
FIG 2
Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Mile, 1999
Light Rail
Bus Rapid Transit
15.6
13.72
12.68
12.54
11.72
8.52
4.2 3.86
3.95
1.74
Dallas
3.45
2.24
Denver
Los Angeles
Pittsburg
San Diego
San Jose
After reviewing difference case studies on both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit,
the Bus Rapid Transit system seemed like a more economically feasible option than the Light
Rail Transit system in the region of Northern San Diego. While both types of transit systems
13
have similar performances, ridership and speed, Bus Rapid Transit is not only cheaper on capital
costs, it also has potential to be cheaper on operating costs as well.
Demographic Analysis
The most successful BRT and LRT systems are located in cites with dense urban centers;
these are most often found in European or Asian cities rather than in American cities. Because of
the spread-out nature of American cities, it is difficult to implement an efficient public transit
system.
San Diego is a primary example of such American city because it is surrounded by
sprawl. The trolley in downtown San Diego and nearby areas works well because it is around the
urban center of San Diego. The mid-coast corridor’s proposal to extend the MTS trolley system
to the La Jolla/UCSD/UTC area might not bring the same benefits to this area because it is less
dense than downtown. The implementation of a light rail system in the mid-coast corridor is not
the best system to implement because the northern end of the proposed trolley lines ends in La
Jolla, where, aside from the student population of UCSD, almost everyone else is in a highincome group and thus very unlikely to take public transit.
FIG 3
14
Forecasting for the future is an important part of city and transportation planning. The
current population of San Diego is 1,333,617 people and in ten years is projected to be 1,542,528
people. This increase in population will require improvement of the current transit system to
allow for the increase in ridership. In the next ten years, the number of people in the age group
20-39 years old will increase to 435,692, far larger than any other age groups. This age group
tends to be the least attracted to public transit because of their ability to drive and their need to
get to school and work in a timely manner.
15
FIG 4
Expansion of public transit systems is always encouraged, but the expansion mode is also
important to consider. In the case of mid-coast corridor, a trolley expansion may not be the most
efficient means of expansion. Having a LRT run through neighborhoods suburbs and residential
areas, which part of the mid-coast corridor runs through, is not going to improve the connectivity
of the transit system. LRT must follow a track which may not be feasible in some areas that
16
desperately need public transit connections. A BRT system, on the other hand, would better
serve these communities because the routes can be changed more easily than LRT routes. BRT
can also runs through areas in which LRT may not be able to.
The forecasted growth of the San Diego region will cause people to be spread out even
further and the need of connections will be greater. Because of the changing demographics and
growth in the San Diego region, a flexible BRT system rather than an LRT system with limited
connectivity would be a more efficient way to serve people and connect the many neighborhoods
of the San Diego region.
Conclusion
Through reading different researches, articles and case studies from Los Angeles,
California and Brisbane, Australia, there appears to be many reasons in favor of the creation of a
Bus Rapid Transit system in San Diego: BRT is flexible, easy to implement in already built-up
areas because it utilizes existing infrastructure, and is more economically feasible to build than a
light rail system.
The current coverage of San Diego’s public transit coverage is patchy at best, and always
inefficient in terms of time and accessibility. Expansion of the trolley to UCSD will allow
efficient transit from UCSD to downtown, however it fails to link to the other main points of
interest in San Diego such as Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach, Convoy, Mira Mesa, Hillcrest and
Fashion Valley. Although the trolley attempts to make the trip fast to major stops such as Old
Town and Qualcomm Stadium, riders will still have to make transfers to slower city buses to get
to their final destination. A bus rapid transit system would not only allow busses to go directly to
17
these smaller areas without transfers, but it could also be done in a way that is just as
comfortable and “classy” as if one were riding a trolley.
In addition, because BRT is extremely flexible, services could be added, rapid lines could
be created and routes could changed based on regional growth and demand. Once stations are
built and ridership begins to increase, the possibilities will be endless.
18
Bibliography
Hoffman, Alan. “Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit: The Quickway Model as a
Modal Alternative to ‘Light Rail Lite’”. The Mission Group. Feb 2008.
Knight, Robert and Trygg, Lisa. "Evidence of Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit Systems
Transportation Vol. 6, No. 3 pp.231-247. 1977
SANDAG. “2050 Regional Growth Forecast” Profile Warehouse. San Diego Association of
Governments. http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/city14fcst.pdf
SANDAG. “Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.”
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_2600_10873.pdf
United States General Accounting Office. MASS TRANSIT – Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise.
Washington D.C. 2001.
Wright, Lloyd. “Mass Transit Options”. Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers
in Developing Cities. 2003. Pg 1-36
Sislak, K.G. “Bus Rapid Transit as a Substitute for Light Rail Transit: A Tale of Two Cities”.
2000.
Currie, Graham. “The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit”. 2005.
Polzin, Steve. Baltes, Michael. “Bus Rapid Transit: A Viable Alternative?” 2002.
Levinson, Herbert. Zimmerman, Samuel. Clinger, Jennifer. Rutherford, Scott. “Bus Rapid
Transit: An Overview”. 2002.
Biehler, A.D. “Exclusive Busways versus Light Rail Transit: A Comparison of New fixedGuideway Systems”. 1989.
O’Sullivan, Sean. “Walking Distances to and from Light-rail Transit Stations”. 1996.
Miller, Mark and Buckely, Stephen. “Institutional Aspect of Bus Rapid Transit – A Macroscopic
Examination”. 2000.