This article appeared in the Times-Standard on 15 November 2007 and in the Eureka-Reporter on 20 November 2007.

Imagine a scene from Humboldt County’s future: doctors, attorneys, production workers, secretaries, and students are waiting on a station platform on a weekday morning. When the vehicle arrives they board, tickets in-hand, and relax in the seats. Their ride accelerates and leaves the station. A few passengers look up from reading to notice the traffic congestion they are passing.

Does this sound like a future where Humboldt County is served by light rail? Think again. The scene described here is one where Humboldt County is served by Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — bus service that delivers the advantages of light rail, plus more, at a fraction of the cost. Some BRT strategies include signal prioritization (so traffic signals turn green when the bus approaches), and queue jumps — designated lanes before traffic signals that allow buses to pass waiting traffic.

Unlike the side-of-the-road bus stops we’re used to, BRT has attractive stations with raised platforms, ample lighting, and next-bus arrival displays. These “stations” are spaced farther apart than “stops” would be to reduce stop-and-go delays of bus travel and tickets are purchased station-side to facilitate faster boarding.

Granted, with a population of approximately 130,000 people, some of them in sparsely populated outlying areas, Humboldt County faces challenges to creating a first-class transit system, but there is also plenty to encourage us.

Redwood Transit System (RTS) is already doing well, boasting extremely high farebox recovery rates. Many RTS buses I have ridden recently are filled to standing-room only. Ridership continues to increase since HSU launched the Green Wheels-conceived Jack Pass universal transit pass.

There are encouraging examples to draw from nearby communities and around the world. At the fall conference of the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, Allan Hoffman, of the consulting firm Mission Group, described how and why many areas are choosing BRT over light rail. He used an animated slide to dramatically illustrate how BRT can offer advantages rail cannot match.

At the top of the slide, he showed a commuter rail vehicle arriving and departing. Below it, smaller BRT vehicles carrying one-third as many passengers were arriving and departing with three times the frequency. He told the audience to focus our attention on the train at the top, but while I impatiently waited for the next virtual train to arrive, I couldn’t help but notice a few buses had already arrived and departed. His next slide announced the lesson of the exercise: “Frequency trumps mode!”

People hate waiting. Long wait times between buses is one of the most common complaints about transit in Humboldt today. Not only can increased frequency reduce wait times, but BRT with “express routes” can bring passengers directly to their destinations with a minimum of intermediary stops and without transfers. Waiting time, Hoffman noted, is weighted heavily by passengers in their experience of overall travel time. That is, one minute spent onboard a vehicle might feel like one minute, but one minute waiting feels like 2-4 minutes.

Lane Transit District (LTD) in Oregon serves a population of about 225,000. LTD staff from were kind enough to share some of the details of their experience launching the BRT “EmX Green Line” in Eugene [photos on this page are of the EmX Green Line].

In January 2007, LTD launched their new BRT service, featuring 4 miles of separated roadways, exclusive lanes, raised platforms, streamlined buses, and signal prioritization. Originally, many people advocated for light rail, but this option was discarded because of its high cost. The BRT project costs were $5.5 million for six high-tech vehicles and $18.6 million for design and construction, much of it for separated roadways.

The EmX Green Line replaced a non-BRT route. In the first month of its introduction, ridership increased by 45%. After 5 months, ridership had increased by 75% from previous levels, up to 5,200 passengers per day.

Consider that the Eureka-Arcata 101 corridor carried 35,000 vehicles per day in 2002. The proposed Caltrans roadway enhancements on the same corridor could cost over $30 million, more than a Humboldt BRT system that would accommodate significant travel demand. One of the great things about BRT is that it is a collection of features and strategies that can be implemented gradually, saving risky all-at-once capital expenditures.

BRT is ambitious for Humboldt County but worthwhile. Eureka keeps getting more congested, oil just went over $88/barrel, and climate change may already be affecting our coastal community with stronger damaging storms. BRT will reduce congestion, the negative economic impacts of car-dependence, and greenhouse gas emissions. It will serve everyone better, especially the transit-dependent — young, old, disabled, and low-income.

With the political will, BRT is achievable for our area. State law gives us the flexibility to spend local transportation dollars on transit improvements. With the Humboldt County General Plan update underway and the Regional Transportation Plan update beginning soon, we have some great opportunities to speak up for immediate and long-term transit improvements to better serve all users in Humboldt County.

I would like to extend my thanks to Charlie Simmons and Graham Carey of Lane Transit District for providing information on their agency's successful service in Eugene, OR.

Related Links

• Mission Group presentation on BRT
• Video on BRT around the world