Skip to Content
Streetsblog California home
Streetsblog California home
Log In
Streetsblog USA

You Don’t Have to Trash BRT to Make the Case for Light Rail, and Vice Versa

In cities considering a light rail project, it's common for transit opponents to suddenly cast themselves as big believers in bus rapid transit. They don't really want to build BRT, they just want to derail the transit expansion. The light rail advocates then have to make their case not only on the merits of the project, but also in relation to the strawman BRT project.

Photo: Sound Transit
Photo: Sound Transit
false

That's the position supporters of Seattle's big transit expansion ballot measure, ST3, find themselves in right now. Taking on the faux pro-BRT crowd in a recent post, Anton Babadjanov at Seattle Transit Blog argues that building a BRT equivalent of the proposed light rail lines wouldn't be that simple or cheap:

How do we get this? We can’t simply reallocate a general purpose lane for this. This is a political non-starter. While it is relatively cheap to implement, no car commuter wants to lengthen their commute so that “somebody else” can have a better transit or carpool trip. People have never supported this en masse.

The only option we have is to build the new right-of-way -- either widen the freeway or build the lanes in a separate structure using viaducts and tunnels as appropriate.

Babadjanov concludes that building BRT with new rights-of-way could save 20 percent compared to light rail, but its capacity would be lower. It's a reasonable argument for the specific situation Seattle transit advocates are in right now. But I've seen the post's headline -- "BRT Is Not Cheaper Than Light Rail" -- shared online as though it applies in every situation, which is just not true.

In many cases, BRT can be built by claiming existing street space, repurposing mixed traffic lanes as exclusive bus lanes. The result is a very cost effective service improvement and capacity expansion. Busways also make sense when you have a single corridor where many different routes converge, where they can all take advantage of an exclusive right-of-way.

There are circumstances where light rail is optimal and circumstances where BRT is the better choice. When defending one mode, you don't have to paint the other with too broad a brush.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Bike Portland reports the city is preparing to make some safety improvements where a driver killed a 15-year-old girl who was crossing the street -- an event that outraged and galvanized locals to fight for safer streets. And Greater Greater Washington considers what federal transportation policy would look like under Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog California

CAHSRA Releases Environmental Documents for LA to Anaheim

The 30-mile project section runs from LAUS to ARTIC and would follow an existing passenger and freight rail corridor, passing through parts of Los Angeles County and several Orange and Los Angeles County cities including Vernon, Commerce, Pico Rivera, Norwalk, Buena Park, Fullerton, and Anaheim.

December 5, 2025

Friday’s Headlines

LA is flunking Vision Zero, but what's happening at other parts of the state?

December 5, 2025

Friday Video: Exactly Why the Cybertruck Sucks

Unwind and let yourself hate on Elon Musk a little.

December 4, 2025

California Awards More Than $140 Million of Federal Funds for Local Road-Safety Programs

The projects are aimed at supporting the governor's modest goal of reducing traffic deaths by 30% in a decade.

December 4, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines

I have a great idea on how LA can improve its crumbling infrastructure...

December 4, 2025

Talking Headways Podcast: The (Parking) Reformation

Tony Jordan, president of the Parking Reform Network, discusses getting rid of our cars, parking policy, and Donald Shoup’s legacy.

December 4, 2025
See all posts