An off-set bus lane, which DOT may or may not employ for BRT on the East Side. Image: NYCDOT [PDF]

I checked in with DOT to see if the off-set design has indeed been finalized, and the answer is "No." The agency is still considering different bus lane configurations. "An image we presented to the board on Tuesday night did show an offset lane," said a DOT spokesperson, "but this is a baseline design, one which we've used in presentations for the last six months."

An off-set configuration would give bus riders on the East Side a faster ride, but without a physically-separated busway, there are few certainties. Off-set bus lanes would have to be paired with camera enforcement to deliver the full potential benefits, said Walter Hook, director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Hook has advised several global metropolises on the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit.

If everything lines up and Albany does pass a law enabling the use of bus-mounted cameras, then, Hook estimates, total travel time on the M15 corridor could be reduced from 70 minutes to 48 minutes during peak hours using off-set lanes. Hook projects that a physically separated busway would cut that time to 42 minutes. No permission from Albany necessary.

I've lived in New York City for just about twenty years now but yesterday was my first trip to Times Square.

Sure, I've been to Times Square before. Plenty of times. But until yesterday Times Square had never ever been a destination for me. Rather, it had always been a place to avoid or, if unavoidable, a place to get in and out of as fast as possible on my way to somewhere else.

The New York City Department of Transportation's "Green Light for Midtown" plan brought me and a lot of other people to Times Square yesterday. And it kept us there. By simply removing motor vehicles from Broadway around Times and Herald Squares and inviting pedestrians in with seating, street performers, good people-watching -- and a naked cowboy -- New York City has created two great new public spaces for tourists, office workers and, yes, even jaded residents.

Streetfilms' Clarence Eckerson squares off with the Naked Cowboy. Icon Parking Systems, the Cowboy's sponsor, may be one of the few businesses unhappy with the new Times Square. The Cowboy is pleased.

The space is still raw and unfinished and it'll be interesting to see how it works during the weekday, but my two young sons and I had a blast yesterday along with thousands of others. Times Square is suddenly a place worth visiting and staying a while (especially if you're a parent desperate for an easy, low-cost weekend adventure for your kids).

The Naparstek boys experience Times Square for the first time. ("Can we get a big TV on the front of our house too?")

A large part of the design’s success stems from the altered relationship between the pedestrian and the structures that frame the square. Walking down the cramped, narrow sidewalks, a visitor could never get a feel for the vastness of the place. Now, standing in the middle of Broadway, you have the sense of being in a big public room, the towering billboards and digital screens pressing in on all sides.

This adds to the intimacy of the plaza itself, which, however undefined, can now function as a genuine social space: people can mill around, ogle one another and gaze up at the city around them without the fear of being caught under the wheels of a cab.

A more personal Times Square: Sunning in the middle of Broadway.

No doubt some aspects of the new Times Square will be found to be successful and others not working all that well. Still, DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and her team already deserve a ton of credit for their willingness to experiment and innovate. During the Iris Weinshall era at DOT, the idea of removing motor vehicles from Broadway was considered a huge long-shot, a Hail Mary pass, a kind of Livable Streets Holy Grail. It was difficult to imagine a version of the New York City Dept. of Transportation that would do it. These guys and their colleagues went ahead and did it...

NYC DOT's Seth Solomonow, Janette Sadik-Khan, Andy Wiley-Schwartz, Ryan Russo and Sean Quinn at Times Square on Monday morning.

Open Planning Project executive director Mark Gorton catches some rays.

The changes underway in New York City right now are pretty breathtaking and livable streets advocates deserve some credit too. Yesterday I couldn't help but think back to a January 2005 dinner at Mark Gorton's Upper West Side apartment. Former Bogotá Mayor Enrique Peñalosa was the guest of honor. Transportation Alternatives' new executive director Paul Steely White set up the event and Jody Gorton cooked up a delicious meal for Times Square Alliance president Tim Tompkins and about fifteen advocates and civic leaders.

The topic of discussion that evening was Broadway and it's potential to be a truly great, pedestrian-only public space. Peñalosa believed it was possible and he was inspirational in laying out the vision. Project for Public Space president Fred Kent had been thinking about the idea for 30 years and he provided the historic perspective. ITDP director Walter Hook had seen pedestrian streets work all over the world and he talked about international best practices. Tompkins had to live with the daily consequences of whatever happened at Times Square and he reminded everyone of the political realities. At the time it seemed a little far-fetched, this notion that Times Square might someday be a mostly car-free space. But here we are five years later and it's happening along with lots of other good stuff.

It was from meetings like this one that the New York City Streets Renaissance Campaign was born and ideas like physically separated bike lanes, car-free streets and a less automobile-dependent city were popularized and made politically possible in New York and beyond. If you've been a part of New York City's livable streets movement, today's a day to pat yourself on the back. As Danish urban designer Jan Gehl says: "How nice it is to wake up every morning and know that your city is a little better than it was the day before."

Photos: Aaron Naparstek, Brad Aaron and Nick Whitaker.

We conclude our discussion with ITDP director Walter Hook with a look at potential BRT configurations. In yesterday's installment, Hook noted that the best BRT systems incorporate both local and express services within exclusive busways, which requires three lanes at station stops. Here he discusses how to make this work along First and Second Avenue in Manhattan.

Streetsblog: What are the options for configuring BRT on First and Second Avenue? If a three-lane configuration is not politically feasible, what else might we end up with?

Walter Hook: It would take a lot of political courage to take three lanes out of First and Second Avenue exclusively for buses, but the current plan, de facto, also takes three lanes at the station stops (see diagram after the jump). I don’t think anything has been finalized, so perhaps we will get a great design even on First and Second Avenue. It would take some political heavy lifting to turn them into New York’s first ‘real’ BRT corridor. The folks at NYCDOT and the MTA know what they are doing, they are pretty familiar with the Latin American BRT systems, and there is no exact precedent for First and Second Avenue, so it would take some real creativity to pull it off.

The initial thinking, I believe, has been to allow only limited stop services inside a bus lane designated primarily with paint. The busway road configuration would probably look something like Broadway south of Houston Street, with a new nice bus shelter built on what used to be several parking spaces (a bus bulb), but with pre-paid ticketing like on Fordham Road:

Parking would probably be retained where there is no bus stop, so vehicles wishing to park will still need to cross the bus lane. 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. Ideally they can also have enforcement cameras mounted on the bus, like in London, which would take care of taxi violators but appears to be illegal for enforcement of normal traffic, and won't do anything about double-parked cops. Local bus services, which constitute nearly half of the bus passengers along First and Second Avenue, will probably continue to operate as before, in mixed traffic lanes, stopping at traditional shelters on the other side of the street, getting no benefit from the bus lane. This has two potentially adverse impacts. First, it means that the impact on mixed traffic will be worse. If you take out one lane for bus-only, and you leave the local buses in another lane, you effectively lose two lanes to buses anyway, and you lose the parking at the stations, so it also effectively consumes three lanes but it is not as visible. 

A slightly preferable option would be the following:

In this case, the express and the local buses would both benefit from the exclusivity of the busway, and from the time savings of pre-paid boarding stations. It would also remove the adverse impact of the local buses stopping in mixed traffic. The down side is that it requires two exclusive bus lanes, and the parking lane, and it requires the construction of a lot more pre-paid boarding stations, more personnel to man them, and more costs as a result.

There is a final possibility, which I think I prefer: 

In this case, the parking serves to protect the exclusivity of the busway, just like the new parking protected bike lanes on Grand Street and on Ninth Avenue. Left turns would be prohibited across the busway, (or right turns if the busway were run down the other side of the street) but vehicles wishing to turn left will just have to make three right turns, something not so difficult in a thick grid like in Manhattan. Alternatively, left turns could be allowed, but this would necessitate a separate signal phase.

The configuration above allows both express buses and local buses to use the exclusive busway. It would be able to handle very high volumes, probably enough to handle Second Avenue Subway-level volumes. It is quite similar to something we proposed in the Johannesburg Rea Vaya BRT program in the CBD. They ultimately put the two-lane busway and the four meter-wide station in the middle of a five-lane road, something more radical than what we proposed.

SB: Are there certain crossings that lend themselves to interborough BRT connections -- the Manhattan Bridge or the Queens Midtown Tunnel, for instance? Could BRT be a way to bring transit services to underserved areas in the Bronx, eastern Queens, and southern Brooklyn that currently have poor transit access? 

WH: The Fordham Road corridor in the Bronx crosses into Northern Manhattan and connects to the subway, and there are interborough express buses using the Gowanus HOV lane and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, obviously without intermediate stops. BRT could be used for interborough crossings when there is demand for a high speed interborough service and there is no subway service with available capacity. There is a lot of subway service over the Manhattan Bridge. There is a big problem getting in from Williamsburg. I think there are some good corridors in the outer boroughs. But we need to be careful at first that people don’t associate BRT with low demand, secondary corridors in poor neighborhoods in the outer boroughs. In the early phases, we need to get a BRT that proves what BRT can be, so before the general concept is accepted, we need something pretty high-profile that everyone will see, something the New York Times reporters and WNYC reporters will ride on their way to work. Something radical along the Brooklyn waterfront might be interesting.

SB: What are the risks in planning and implementing the system here? What could go wrong and what are some common pitfalls?

WH: BRT is easiest to put in where you already have a lot of bus traffic. If you put buses in a dedicated bus lane, and the bus frequency is high, like more than one per minute, it is a lot easier than putting a bus lane on a road where there is only one bus every 10 or 20 minutes. People get pretty upset looking at that empty bus lane, and they should. If you have low bus frequency, you might as well open the lane to high occupancy vehicles, or motorists willing to pay a toll, or taxis, or even bicyclists or motorcycles in some conditions. New York has a few pretty high bus frequency corridors where BRT would work, but it's not going to work everywhere.

SB: Four years from now, how will we know whether New York got BRT right?

WH: You'll know because it will be on the tourist map, and everybody will know about it and complain about it, because it will be as much a part of everyday life as the subway.

SB: What would New York have to do in 2009 to win the Sustainable Transport Award again?

WH: A world-class interborough BRT, full pedestrianization of Broadway at least between Times Square and Union Square (we did this Q&A before yesterday's announcement -- eds.), some model shared streets, new model parking rules, and a world-class bike sharing program. Hey, the bar is getting raised every year. Besides, there is no way we would give it to the same city two years in a row no matter what miracles they accomplished, so they should think big, and aim for 2011 or 2012. Bloomberg will probably have plenty of time, but there is a lot of competition out there. The world is changing fast.

An ITDP proposal for BRT on 34th Street. Rendering by Luc Nadal and Mark De Decker.

Streetsblog: What would you say are the defining characteristics of a real BRT-level system?

Walter Hook: To be called BRT, a line must be a package of physical and operational components (stations, vehicles, running ways, passenger information, services, fare collection, traffic signal priority and other Intelligent Transportation System applications) that form a permanently integrated, customer-friendly, high performance system with a unique identity. BRT operations are generally tightly controlled by a technologically advanced system to keep service regular and reliable. How the system achieves high quality service and high speeds will vary according to the physical and operational environment, which, of course, is highly variable in New York City.

A BRT system's identity really comes down to all its elements being customer-friendly, attractive and planned as a system -- vehicles, stations, dedicated lanes, branding and passenger information, all fitting together as an integrated whole reflecting the surrounding traffic and urban environment.

The most important thing is the stations. I think NYCDOT is open to designing some truly iconic stations, something that everyone would identify with NYC BRT, the way New York's subway stations are identified the world over with their mosaics.

An ideal BRT station is physically enclosed, and the platforms are elevated, about 28-40 inches off the ground. A one meter platform on a sidewalk is a real intrusion, but in the middle of a big road it is nice to be up above the traffic protected by a meter-thick slab of concrete. A guarded, enclosed station with a turnstile would stop fare evasion and  also provide security and protection from weather. While manning stations does add operating costs, something the MTA is not going to be happy about in this fiscal climate, the reduction in fare evasion and increase in operating efficiency might justify the cost.

A yet-to-open BRT station in Johannesburg, part of the new Rea Vaya system slated to launch later this year. Photo: Aimee Gauthier/ITDP.

Secondly, they need a killer BRT vehicle, not just a bus. There are now manufacturers who make some very modern looking buses that look almost like futuristic light rail cars and are bright, spacious and comfortable inside.  A lot of this is just window dressing, but it makes a big psychological difference. If everything else works great but the bus looks like a normal bus, New Yorkers are going to say, “So what?”

Third, physical separation of the busway is also probably necessary in a city where the cops are as likely as anyone to double park in a standard bus lane.

Fourth, it's not just about the buses. Great BRT systems generally also put in lots of great bike lanes, sidewalks, street furniture, landscaping, and other amenities implemented as part of the overall system. A BRT corridor should feel like a classic European boulevard, not like a highway.

A crosswalk meets the BRT right-of-way in Pereira, Colombia. Photo: Duan Xiaomei.

SB: How would you attain that in New York, on a corridor like Fordham Road or First Avenue?

WH: A BRT system cannot be planned in the abstract. It has to be designed for the needs of a specific corridor, beginning with a specific service plan reflecting the likely market and operational environment. What works in Bogotá doesn’t work in Quito, and what works in both may not work in New York. New York does not have a lot of roads with high bus passenger volumes that easily lend themselves to the standard BRT configuration.  Narrow roads, lots of commercial activity with need for truck access and deliveries, lots of residential parking to worry about, all make things more difficult. Lots of intersections quite close together also make things harder. Some of Bogotá's TransMilenio stations would be three blocks long in New York City.

One-way streets also present special design issues. New York has a mostly one-way street grid, and most of the best BRT systems have been designed mostly on two-way arterials. One-way streets simplify the intersections but make it awkward to put the BRT system in the central median. There are not a lot of wide two-way roads in New York with medians, which are generally the easiest to convert. Dealing with multiple services also adds complexity, but also creates opportunities. Most major roads in New York have both limited stop and local bus services, and sometimes interborough express services as well. A standard, single segregated lane BRT system cannot accommodate express buses because they get stuck behind the local service. So you need to deal with this. Area traffic control systems running the traffic lights may also add complexity (I don't know because they are not so typical in developing countries).

With this configuration and a good service plan with a mixture of express and local services you could move as many passengers as the Second Avenue Subway at a fraction of the cost.

First and Second Avenue shouldn't be thought of just in terms of how they would work as a BRT corridor, but rather in terms of what their role might be in a longer term BRT network. It is always better to go with a design that does not foreclose future options with regard to service changes. Maybe the MTA will be reluctant to consider changing services in the next few years, but the infrastructure might last for 30 years, when the situation may change.

Until recently, the MTA has been quite resistant to exploring significant route changes, and certainly they are not going to do anything that loses them more money in this financial environment. Historically the MTA has believed (and observed) that interborough express bus routes are money losers. Maybe in the future BRT buses might operate along the planned new Brooklyn waterfront, cross the Williamsburg Bridge, and then run up First Avenue to the Upper East Side. Another route might run from Williamsburg down to Wall Street via Allen Street. If in the future First and Second Avenue are going to need to service routes such as these, the stations and the bus lanes will need to be designed differently than if they are just servicing limited stop services going up and down the East Side. We shouldn’t build something that will foreclose these options in the future.

The best BRT systems tend to accommodate both limited stop, express and local bus services inside exclusive lanes. Curitiba, because it only had one lane in either direction, operated express buses in the mixed traffic lanes, and its BRT system was just for local stop services. For some trips it was often faster to take the express service in the mixed traffic lanes. Bogota’s main innovation was putting some very sophisticated combinations of new express and local services inside the exclusive BRT infrastructure. This requires sub-stops with passing lanes, and that requires two lanes per direction plus a third lane for the bus stop itself. With this configuration and a good service plan with a mixture of express and local services you could move as many passengers as the Second Avenue Subway at a fraction of the cost -- if you could find the space and received the signal priority to do it.

Select Bus Service has sped trips along the Bx12 route, but falls short of full BRT. Photo: Brad Aaron.

Streetsblog: What's your evaluation of the SBS pilot route on Fordham Road? Does it qualify as BRT?

Walter Hook: The Fordham Road "Select Bus Service" pilot route was a very successful bus service enhancement -- including a number of BRT elements. The city is not calling it "BRT," though, and I think that is reasonable. A rule of thumb should be whether or not a map company would include the BRT system in a map of New York City. If it doesn't appear on any map other than as a standard bus route, then it has failed to enter the public consciousness as something above and beyond normal bus services.

Fordham Road has a dedicated lane for most of its length, but it is not physically segregated and not enforced as well as it could be.

Fordham Road has a dedicated lane for most of its length, but it is not physically segregated and not enforced as well as it could be. A BRT system does not necessarily need to have a physically-segregated lane. If the road is not congested, or bus frequency is very high, or enforcement is very tight, physical separation is not necessary. They removed a lot of parking, which took political courage, and this helps keep the lane free of vehicles. And the dedicated lane and signal priority are helping to increase speeds during the peak periods. But I suppose they have occasional problems with vehicles in the bus lanes because of too meek enforcement. If the New York state legislature would allow the city to have bus lane cameras that would help enforcement efforts.

SB: What do you think of the payment system they've set up?

WH: NYCT has instituted a pre-paid boarding system where people pay at the bus stop rather than when entering the bus. Off-board fare collection is a critical element of any BRT system. Once passengers get on, a ticket inspector checks periodically to make sure people have their receipts. This is the biggest innovation on Fordham Road and it brings the biggest benefit. User surveys and data collected so far indicate that the amount of time spent waiting for passengers to board and alight has dropped significantly while overall speeds -- due to the lanes, signal priority and off-board fare collection -- have gone up as much as 20 percent during peak period, when it counts.

The system is a technical success but I think full BRT can really hit the public consciousness to a greater degree.

The main downside with this approach is fare evasion. Given the fiscal climate at the MTA, this is a worry. However, NYCT believes that because roving inspectors can fine evaders, evasion on Fordham Road is the same or lower than it was before, which bodes well for off-board fare collection in New York City.

Most full Latin American BRT systems have physically-enclosed stations with a manned ticket booth and turnstiles, like in a metro, to reduce fare evasion. These enclosed stations give the passenger a sense of security and make them feel like they are inside a system. They do have their downside, however. They take up a lot of space physically and visually, and sometimes create problems for pedestrians. They also increase operating costs significantly. Personnel are always very expensive in the U.S.

SB: And the Select Buses themselves?

The identity of the system remains an issue on Fordham Road. Though they have a distinct paint scheme, buses look like normal articulated buses, and the stations don't have much of a separate identity from the new ones used in the rest of the bus system.

So, I think the system is a technical success but I think full BRT can really hit the public consciousness to a greater degree.

New York City made a major public commitment to Bus Rapid Transit in 2006 when, after years of discussion, the MTA and DOT put forward plans for pilot routes in each of the five boroughs. In the meantime, the city's BRT agenda has encountered a few setbacks in Albany and made a partial breakthrough on Fordham Road, with a service that incorporates some nifty bus improvements, but not enough to merit the BRT designation.

Streetsblog caught up with Hook -- in between trips to Cape Town and Mexico City -- for an email Q&A about why New York City needs Bus Rapid Transit, common misconceptions of BRT in America, and what will make BRT succeed here. This is the first of four installments.

Streetsblog: Is BRT the right mode for New York City at this moment in time? A lot of folks think that BRT is no substitute for light rail or a subway system. How would you pitch the idea of BRT to New Yorkers?

Walter Hook: I was in Philadelphia a few months back, which is a real rail and streetcar-loving town, and I took a lot of heat for suggesting BRT had a place in U.S. cities like New York and Philadelphia, particularly from my friends in the sustainable transportation advocacy community. I understand why a lot of folks in the U.S. see BRT as some sort of marketing trick to pawn off low-quality bus improvements as mass transportation. I think it's because we don't really have a full BRT system in the U.S. Not very many people have been to Bogotá, or Curitiba, or Pereira or Guayaquil to see the best BRT systems. These are not exactly tourist Meccas.

The Second Avenue Subway would be great, it’s needed, it would have higher demand than almost any other metro line in the country. But will it happen?

New York City already has the most extensive subway network in the U.S., and one of the most extensive in the world. Whatever BRT is built, it will need to fit seamlessly into that network. Some subway lines are extremely crowded -- at capacity despite a very high fare by international standards. The 4, 5, and 6, the L -- these trains are packed.  I don't know why Japanese and Chinese cities can roll out 10 miles of new subway line a year, and the richest city in the world has been trying and failing to build the Second Avenue Subway since the 1960s. But I've lived in this town a long time, and I am skeptical. The optimists are telling us that we will have a Second Avenue Subway between 125th Street and 63rd Street by 2015 and only after we spend $4 to $5 billion. So this means we are probably talking about 2018 or 2020, and $10 billion. The Second Avenue Subway would be great, it’s needed, it would have higher demand than almost any other metro line in the country. At those volumes, metros are often a good investment. But will it happen?

Plus, the MTA needs something like an additional $20 billion just to bring the existing system into a state of good repair. If we only talk rail, that puts any mass transit improvements to my neighborhood -- Brooklyn adjacent to the hole in the ground that may one day be Atlantic Yards -- off the radar for two decades, even though they are talking about introducing Manhattan-level densities into my neighborhood in the next few years.

SB: Couldn't light rail get the job done in many cases?

WH: I don’t see light rail as much of a solution to this problem. Light rail has all the problems of a BRT system with most of the cost of a metro system. Surface light rail in Manhattan -- how much would it cost? The Denver light rail line was estimated to cost from $40 to $75 million per mile, and naturally it’s proving to be like double that. That’s less than the billions per mile the subway would cost. But the best BRT system in the world, Bogotá's TransMilenio, when the complete reconstruction of the entire road into a boulevard with bike lanes and beautiful trees is all included in the price, cost about $20 million a mile. It might cost more than this in the U.S., but all things being equal (high quality of all elements, dedicated transitways, specially configured low-noise, low-emissions vehicles, etc.) it's going to be a whole lot cheaper than LRT.

Very good BRT systems have been built for as little as $8 million a mile. With the same capital budget, we could build more than twice as much proper BRT as light rail, probably 5 to 10 times more, with no loss in the quality of service, the capacity, or the speed. Even counting the contribution to total life cycle costs of operating and maintenance costs, BRT is a bargain, something all New Yorkers love.

The engineering for light rail is more complicated: You need electric conduit, ugly overhead wires, tracks -- not to mention rail yards that are nearly impossible to locate in any dense city. What is the operational advantage? If light rail does not have an exclusive right of way, it is even more stuck in traffic congestion and much more accident prone than local bus services. Capacity? The capacity of a light rail system is no higher than a BRT system. The law of physics pertaining to only one object occupying a given space at one time applies to LRT just as it does to buses. The limitations of block lengths and traffic signals apply to both equally. The capacity of LRT with only two tracks (almost universal) is significantly lower than the many BRT systems that have passing lanes at the stations supporting express services just like on the subway here.

Very good BRT systems have been built for as little as $8 million a mile. With the same capital budget, we could build more than twice as much proper BRT as light rail. BRT is a bargain, something all New Yorkers love.

There is one circumstance that I have discovered where light rail might have a higher capacity. If a light rail station has all the same features as a BRT system, including pre-paid boarding from stations with platforms level with the vehicle floor, and there is only one exclusive lane available (no space for a passing lane at the station), so express services are impossible, and the LRT has an ultra-modern signaling system like they have in Zurich, it might be possible to reach capacities of about 20,000 passengers per direction during a single peak hour using LRT, while a BRT with the exact same configuration would only be able to reliably move about 15,000 at a similar speed. But there are almost no corridors in the United States with transit demand above 15,000 at the peak hour per direction that do not currently have a metro or subway line in them, so ultimately, the preference for light rail over a proper BRT system is mostly aesthetics and ignorance of the technical capabilities of a well-planned and implemented BRT system.

In Mexico City, MetroBus has enhanced perceptions of surface transit. Photo: Shreya Gadepalli/ITDP.

Of course, you can mess up a BRT system, and Boston's Silver Line proved that you could waste almost as much money on BRT as you can on a rail system. Many of the BRT systems we've worked on are nowhere near as good as TransMilenio. For mainly political reasons, the risk of BRT being something far from optimal is pretty big, even here in New York City.

It's important to the world that New York City doesn't just build some low-quality bus improvement and call it BRT. This could really damage the already poor reputation of BRT as a serious mass transit option in the U.S. But what if New York were to hit it out of the park, with something amazing? The rest of the world expects no less from the greatest city in the world.