On my blog the subject of PRT, which I say great, the BRT lanes allow cyber cabs and the like. But all vehicles will have to pass the New York driving test. So, New York allows all mixes of digitally communication semi and automated vehicles up the designated route. They follow communicative commands and follow the street marking.

They all share camera systems, hence the object world they live in is constructed of all observesations, fellow vehicles and stationary management cameras. They talk WiFi, or something like it.

When humans are riding we can give them a red button for emergency stop. There will be various automatic local stops, from central management to the vehicle itself.

The vehicle will have to identify and protect pedestrians to pass the driving test. But the test will involve all aspects of communications and emergency and physical object avoidance.

The system would remake the retail district along Second Ave. The low cost and synchronous traffic allows value added at more frequent places. The food business will be remade by the ability to order diner from anywhere along Second Ave. UPS, FedEx, wand competitors will manage highly efficient freight bulb-outs, possibly within large warehouses.

Hundreds of thousand of jobs appear along and around Second Ave as even the smallest shop can take inventory and manage it with value. Bakeries, small tailor and clothing shops tailored to specific clients.

Of course Second Ave would the the center of transportation science for the next 40 years, not a bad pay off. Much of what the world calls transportation will be defined by scientists and engineers along Second Ave.

But rolling resistance in total is only 5% of the losses. However lane width is a problem. In Castillon Spain they are trying automated steering on stretches of the BRT lanes so that the actual lane can be as much as a meter less in width, getting three lanes out of two.

Here is the link:
http://www.citymobil-project.eu/site/en/SP1%20Castellon.php

The Castillon trials expect to include freight in their semi-automated system. They also use automated docking to narrow the separation between bus and passenger, something which greatly aids automated freight.

I also ran across a university study on the use of a single lane for two way BRT. The idea is to use left turn portions of the road to pull over and let an opposing bus pass. This method works but also requires semi-automation and signal assist.

Basically, the formula is to use silicon intelligence all the way through to regain the advantages of rail. Rubber and wheel technology will likely advance to reduce rolling resistance, but ultimately better pavement, which is expensive, ca solve rolling resistance.

Start with the last version of the plan above. Make the BRT driverless, automated. Add two more cars to the normal articulated configuration. Make the BRT rubber wheeled trains run forward and backward to eliminate turn around. Add all the signal assist technology you need, including lowering crossing guards as needed.

The vision technology exists today to detect safe unloading and loading of passengers.

Then add automated freight to utilize the installed technology. Freight bulb outs can deliver a box of groceries across town for a buck making on-line shopping the least oil intensive activity in town.

This is happening in the US Army today where 1/3 of army vehicles will be robotic. Private warehouses are adopting the technology.

Second Avenue becomes a fully automated packet delivery system for goods and people. The cost of moving something across town becomes so low that a hundred thousand new jobs are created utilizing the low cost of transportation. Your economy will boom. You can add increasingly smart technology in stages to minimize disruptions. Silicon intelligence, rubber wheels, and asphalt.

What would make these diagrams dynamite is some dimensioning and any other useful data related to systems and other requirements to actually implement these things. Also data on when certain things are appropriate and their impact would be great. I know that there are transportation standards and recommendation books available but it would be great if streetsblog compiled its own database although it would be quite a lot of work!

Thanks!

I've heard from some people I know at Eng-Wong Taub, which is consulting on Select Bus, that the city projects transit demand on the 1st/2nd Ave. to be high enough that both the Second Avenue Subway and 1st/2nd BRT would be viable. Then, of course, there's the real chance that most of the SAS won't ever be built...

Another related post at AMNP, http://architecture.myninjaplease.com/?p=4240

interesting to see a past view of how to prioritize traffic and infrastructure.

One glaringly obvious omission from these designs is bicycle lanes! When we decide to do the amazing work of redesigning some of our widest and most unsustainable avenues, we can not miss the opportunity to build complete streets that accommodate all users, the ones traveling there now as well as the types of travel we hope for in the future. Bicycles and buses working together to get people moving faster, safer and with health and air quality in mind, will do enormous things for transport on what are now are busiest and most dangerous corridors.

I suppose you are referencing the monorail and the PeopleMover; unfortunately they are still seen as rides when they both are ingenious transportation devices. The monorail even enters a hotel to discharge guests, while the PeopleMover (called "Tomorrowland Transit Authority) is simply a ride that runs on magnetic levitation and enters and exits buildings quite ingeniously.

By the way, Tomorrowland is themed as "The future that never was" as envisioned by science fiction of the 20s and 30s. The fact that it contains a fantastic mass transit prototype is an irony that is very unfortunate.

It occurred to me yesterday that the Pulaksi Skyway and the Holland Tunnel may make good bus facilities, like the Lincoln Tunnel lane, but I'm not too familiar with them.

What are the issues with this idea?

Interesting idea! Turns out that Route 139 and the parallel Bergen Arches have been discussed as candidates for busways.

But west of the Bergen Arches I don't know what you could do. The Lincoln Tunnel XBL works fairly well because 495 is a six-lane highway. By contrast the only Holland Tunnel feeder routes that are six lanes are the two directions of Kennedy Boulevard; the Pulaski Skyway, the Newark Bay Extension, the Newark Turnpike and the Lincoln Highway are all four lanes.

Installing two-way BRT on an existing four-lane car road takes a ton of political strength and guts. Does anyone know if it's been done anywhere?

"I thought there was a new subway being built under 2nd Avenue? Why is BRT needed on this street?"

Perhaps they should build both directions of BRT along 1st Avenue with the island in the center of the street serving both directions. That would maintain one extra lane of traffic on Second Avenue. If you do that, you probably would need one lane of northbound traffic on Second Avenue maybe for taxis only.

I also don't like the idea of banning left turns entirely. Walter Hook states you could just as easily make three right turns instead. In Midtown that could take you 15 or more extra minutes and would greatly increase congestion. Left turns should be retained at least every half mile with clear signage where the next left turn is allowed.

This is the sentence that bothers me most:

"Since there can be no physical segregation if the parking remains, the lane will inevitably still face problems with double-parked taxis and police cars."

That would make it a total disaster and waste of money. And why is he calling it BRT, when the MTA has abandoned that term and replaced it with SBS?

(BTW, I don't take the M15 down Second Ave in the evening -- I walk to Lex and take the train. Second Ave is hopeless at rush hour.)

One, train/encourage drivers to drive at the maximum safe speed. I estimate that about half of my rides are made longer by drivers purposely going slow in what I can only assume is an effort to "stay on schedule" or increase their distance from the bus in front of them. This is a losing battle anyway. At rush hour the buses are nearly continuous, they should all just be getting people moving as quickly as possible.

Two, eliminate limited stops fewer than 10 blocks apart. Limited buses should be for people going at least 30 blocks. Everyone else belongs on a local. Fully two dozen people every morning get on at 14th and off at 23rd. Limited stops should be at Houston, 14, 42, 57, 72, 86, etc.

Three, just give up on fare collection during rush hour. Everybody either has unlimited cards or a subway transfer anyway. Maybe people with unlimited or transfers could be permitted to skip the farebox, with enforcement provided via the same type of agents being used on the Bronx service. Agents would have a little handheld computer and you would need to provide your card if asked, which the agent could confirm had a valid transfer or unlimited fare on it.

I don't think it's good to put limited and local service on opposite sides of the street. People like to be able to take the first available bus.

One other free improvement, while we're at it. Could we program the signs on the limited buses to say M15L so you don't have to wait for it to scroll through all its messages in order to see if it's a limited?

In order to lay new concrete curbs, I think you often need to check/relocate utilities underneath. That way, if the utilities need to be replaced, the city doesn't have to reconstruct the curb, which is quite expensive compared to simply replacing a portion of sidewalk or a portion of roadway. This can be fairly time consuming/expensive.