Transitway An Innovation in Public Transportation BY MOHAMMAD NISAR AND ATA

Cost-effective public transit options suitable for serving all demand levels include: bus service in mixed traffic, bus service in reserved lane, transitway/buswdy, light rail transit (LRT) (segregated right of way), intermediate capacity advanced light rail transit (ALRT), and heavy rail rapid transit. This classification of transit options takes into account right-of-way access (that is, mixed traffic; shared, limited access; shared corridor; exclusive corridor). The suitability of any option in terms of right-of-way access, capacity, and unit cost (that is, cost-per-passenger-kilometer) has to be investigated for demand and other characteristics of corridors and the overall urban area. The bus transitway and LRT options could be considered for similar demand levels and right of way. However, the role of transitway has not been sufficiently researched. The merits of bus transit for lowto medium-density urban areas were described by Meyer, Kain, and Wohl in the early 1960s as a part of a comparison of bus and rail technologies.’ A number of studies during the period between 1965 and 1975 examined the relative costs of bus and heavy rail transit and found bus transit to be attractive because of its cost efficiency. Studies in the 1960s and even the 1970s, however, could draw upon very little experience with bus rapid transit, particularly the use of articulated buses on exclusive right of way. Consequently, all costs and service performance measures were estimates based on theory alone. Furthermore, given that the information base on modern LRT was also scarce, this technology was generally not included in system research. The capital cost for the exclusive bus transit facility was extracted from highwayor freeway-based cost statistics. For rail transit, long trains with up to ten cars, without regard to frequency of service, and a wide range of hypothetical operational methods were the basis of comparison. Under these conditions, numerous urban areas in North America opted for LRT, operating mainly on surface routes, as their primary system for public transportation, assisted by bus feeders. Recently, actual experience with bus rapid transit has created a renewed interest in this innovation. The rapid transit system of the Ottawa-Carleton region (Ontario, Canada) is based entirely on the motorbus. Other North American urban areas that have such facilities, although of limited scope, are: Pittsburgh; Washington, D .C.; Los Angeles; Houston; and Seattle. Bus rapid transit has been favorably reviewed in the recent literature.’” 4 This paper presents results of analysis based on actual service and cost information and provides further insights in