BRT -
Transit system definition and design should include considerations of current high-capacity bus inefficiencies. As defined, BRT's are to be fashioned in 'big rig' form, having to do primarily with capacity. Just this one criteria alone, is offsetting design enough to destabilize what could be a good solution to our ongoing attempts to resolve transportation needs. Do the math. If you can move twice the number of people 8 times as fast with 4 times the number of vehicles, each being 1/6 the size of a bus.... and with 50% of vehicles owned and maintained by the public and...... If this equation, looks unrecognizably healthy, it makes a point. That of current design processes - limited in scope, validation and result.
As suggested above, is it not unreasonable to assume the preferences of the user when addressing BRT design? The automobile, with some 200 years of use, certainly has an experiential statement to be made for what works and doesn't. Contrarily it seems urban planners and transportation designers are somehow tethered to BRT as prescribed. It is apparently common for those challenged with mass transportation development to rally toward off the shelf solutions and base design criteria on everything opposite-pole of the automobile. When at 9pm in Denver, I see empty buses tooling around with no passengers, I can't help to think.....
Without due respect and consideration of what the transportation industry has peddled fairly successfully for centuries and what the public has used, fairly successfully, and for a similar amount of time, any effort to address design for innovative and new mass transit transportation systems is susceptible to failure. It is tiring to watch tech-driven attempts at lawn-dart solutions to a misunderstood need. Interestingly, it seems the automobile industry itself is plagued with this same design process, as year after year tech-driven in-dash gadgetry bolsters continuous upgrades to a 200 year old road-based transportation design, albeit one that continues to intrigue and sell, year after year.
Is there an answer in the merging of systems design criteria? Tried and true, always speaks louder at the design round table. Why are we not hearing?
As one observes the BRT concept as currently defined and from outside the box, it certainly satisfies a similarly 'boxed' set of design criteria. Though, there is SO much more that this BRT concept can do. Taking a step back from the box and the concept itself, one might consider and even point the finger at the actual process of design as being culprit and holding hostage the ultimate and responsible solution. It is not a mystery- that of design. Though it seems as though we have lost sight of the process - another inherent flaw in the search for solutions. Everyone understands that any design result will be as flawed or successful as the design process itself. So, step away from the prescriptive solution, the process and the problem. Start from the beginning with each need described, then unveiled of opportunity and constraint. Finally, blend this into design criteria that actually contributes to a validated design route. Whether this criteria is achievable is based on application of the actual design tool - technology, perhaps new.
We need to think as if standing beside Carl Benz.
Airail (excerpt attached) was one of many entries in the BRT Design Competition. This particular design was almost denied entry, due to the buses limited capacity assumed by the Contest title.... BRT. Nevertheless, it was allowed, reviewed and when displayed at the National Building Museum in Washington D.C. even GM was interested! This exemplifies a certain need to join hands in adding fuel to the pre-design phase and en-route to changing our way of thinking about transportation. I would like to think that Airail was, and is still, one of many benchmark attempts.
Keep the design chin up. Breathe in the process with fresh air and innovation. Solutions happen in the continued contribution and when based on real need.
-------------------------------------------
Kenneth E. Martin, AIA
Principal Proprietor
KeMA
Thornton CO
-------------------------------------------