Breaking Development in the Transit Space Race

Something big happened today. The Utah transit authority and the FTA signed an agreement that would allow the federal government to pay for 20% of Salt Lake Cities 5 line rail expansion. I'm not quite sure yet who got the better deal, but I think it was the Utah Transit Authority. According to the Deseret News:

UTA general manager John Inglish said the letter of intent, known as a memorandum of understanding, was an unprecedented agreement between a state agency and the Federal Transit Administration. Normally, transit agencies approach the federal government for funding on projects one-by-one, not as a package deal, he said.

Because the letter of intent applies to all five projects, Inglish said his agency will save what would have been years of waiting through a lengthy federal funding process.

So instead of going through the New Starts process while waiting for the FTA to reject their projects or cause cost inflation and change station locations to fit the ridership model which favors bus projects, they can actually plan to come in under budget and on time and with the projects the voters wanted. The memorandum of understanding states that UTA will fund two light rail lines and a commuter line on it's own while the FTA pays for 80% of two other light rail lines.

Ever since the New Starts program started, the federal share has been dwindling for fixed guideway projects. Starting out on the same footing as highways, federal funding began at 80% of the project cost but has since dwindled to 50% with a 10 year waiting period. While 20% overall might be a little low, the signing of the document today by the UTA has opened up options for cities that want to get into the transit space race. Cities that have been able to raise local money yet have a master plan to build a transit system. This fits into one of the reasons why I started this blog, which is to document the transit space race.

This might be a good model for cities that are just now looking to build light rail networks or who might want to get back into the hunt. Now it should be said that in keeping up with Denver and Portland, Salt Lake City had a referendum to raise their sales tax to fund their rail extensions. I know there have been a few thoughts that this might be happening but UTA was traveling under the radar until this announcement. Other cities might take notice and see this as an opportunity to make a deal with the FTA. Minneapolis is looking to build 3 more LRT lines, Tampa just announced a new rail plan and Birmingham is starting to think about it.

Houston tried to do this a few years ago but the idea got blocked by former Rep Tom Delay and John Culbertson. They asked that the FTA fund the first two rail lines while they built the next two locally. They were asking for 50% of the total and before that they were trying to use the main street line as a match. Because they couldn't get it through though, they had to downgrade some lines to BRT.

As I said before, this is a pretty big deal. It might signal a big change in how transit expansion is going to get funded. Hopefully it moves back up from 20% and perhaps the death of the process that has caused so many problems by taking quick decision making away from local jurisdictions.

The Rapid Streetcar

In light of recent high costs related to light rail and advancements in construction, a new option for building rapid transit networks are available for cities worried about costs. The Rapid Streetcar concept is gaining popularity and cities around the country are looking into ways to build starter light rail lines. But what is the rapid streetcar?

Streetcars are cheaper because of their lower infrastructure requirements. Often there is no need to relocat utilities, right of way does not need to be purchased and the stops are smaller and the vehicles more pedestrian oriented. Streetcar stops are also closely spaced if the goal is to be a circulator or short line transport mode. However if a longer distance transit mode that mimics light rail is what you're looking for, but your city is on a budget, the rapid streetcar might be your choice.

Many cities have taken up the mantle of the rapid bus to be their cost effective alternative to light rail, but only do this based on cost, not because its what the citizenry wants. Recent Rapid Bus movements in Oakland, San Francisco, and Charlotte have shown that people really want light rail on a budget but haven't been able to engineer their systems to reduce costs and are therefore left with an inferior transit mode for their stated goals.

But by using streetcars in center lanes with single tracking and passing sidings at stations you can get the same performance as light rail on 10 minute headways. Streetcars aren't single vehicles either. Skoda streetcars have couplers on them as well that would make them multiple car consists. The lighter vehicles are about 66 feet long as opposed to 90 foot LRVs yet you can still get increased passenger capacity and lower infrastructure needs. You can see in the picture below from Skoda.

This fascinating development in value engineering is nothing new and has been rarely used in the United States if at all. A recent extension of the Portland Streetcar to Lake Oswego might be its first test. Literature on the subject has been presented at TRB by Lyndon Henry and has been extensively covered by Light Rail Now! Recent publications including Raise the Hammer in Canada as well as the folks in Kansas City have been looking to this option. This technology and engineering arrangement is a smart way for cities to get rapid transit and build the system they want and can afford, not the system they settle for.

Rail Ready BRT

Last week I had someone comment that I had not done my homework in respects to calling Oakland out for it's weak BRT program. And I should clarify that it isn't really Oakland rather AC Transit that is being weak. I'll give them some props for taking lanes away from auto traffic but at the same time I have to be skeptical of their claims that BRT will be a placeholder for LRT. Just because you build BRT doesn't mean its automatically a placeholder.

So when I got a comment about not doing my homework on San Francisco I was a bit incensed, especially because it was an anonymous troll and I feel like I pay pretty close attention to what is going on around the country. They were bound to get to my little corner of the blogosphere at some point but lets cut to the chase. Oakland will always think of itself as less than San Francisco, and this BRT plan shows it. The fact of the matter is that even though San Francisco is planning BRT too, that doesn't make Oakland or AC Transit cooler. In fact it makes AC Transit look even worse because San Francisco's BRT line on Geary is going to be rail ready. What do I mean when I say that? Well according to the SFMTA site, rail ready means the following...

The center-running bus rapid transit alternative will be designed to the physical dimensions required to accommodate a light rail vehicle. The Geary BRT Study will also determine the costs and feasibility of implementing a more extensive definition of rail-ready, which aims to minimize future construction impacts if resources become available to convert the bus rapid transit project to light rail. This definition would potentially include installing the rails and sub-surface electrical work, relocating utilities, and building longer platforms to accommodate light rail vehicles during the initial BRT construction.

In the AC Transit EIS, it states that Light Rail is a long term goal in the corridor. Long term probably means next century.

It was chosen as the mode for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), with the understanding that LRT service would be considered the long-term goal in the corridor.

and

The BRT transitway and stations would be designed for future conversion to LRT service. Placement and configuration of BRT facilities would be consistent with requirements for upgrading the BRT transitway to an LRT guideway and extending the low-platform BRT stations to serve up to two lowfloor light rail vehicles. No timeline or program for such a conversion has been established.

On the other side of the bay, the local advocates at Rescue Muni are pushing for a rather speedy timeline for transformation including putting the rails in immediately.

Therefore, we support a BRT project that is "Rail-Ready" or ready for easy conversion to rail when funding for that project can be secured. We also support aggressively pursuing rail along the Geary Corridor...Put the rails in now! Another requirement of "Rail-Ready" BRT is to lay the rails now. It is our understanding that rails can sit for many years without harm to their functionality. And when it comes to rapid transit projects, the rails aren't the main cost of the project. Again, if we don't put rails in now, the bus lanes will have to be torn out and reconstructed, creating a mess.

So if you think that AC Transit is a forward thinking organization that doesn't think of themselves as just a bus company you would be wrong. I believe their intent is to never improve to rail. A lot of people are getting suckered into this plan because its the best they can do at the moment and because its cheap. Since when did this country not want to do things right the first time? While I think that BRT in general is a sham, the guys at Rescue Muni and the SFMTA know that their constituents want rail and are going to get it to them as fast as possible, on the other hand AC Transit runs a bus system that believes they are operating for just the poor, so they are going to give them poor service. I predict super high operating costs for these corridors because lets face it, with all those drivers in all those buses, thats gonna cost a lot of money.

BRT Lobby Lobs Accusations

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer states that BRT is better than rail for addressing a number of urban ills. However this misinformation attempt by the BRT Lobby led by Bill Vincent is starting to get scared by the rapid expansion of rail. I imagine they feel like they have to turn up the talk since they are getting pushed back into a corner by actual riders and citizens who don't want more buses.

The first whopper comes from Vincent himself, vehemently explaining that BRT can bring the same amount of riders as rail, however as proven in Los Angeles, the Orange Line only attracts half of the riders it should when compared with the population living around the Gold Line LRT. Also, his claim that you can cut greenhouse gases with diesel buses versus electric railcars is laughable at best. In San Francisco where the Muni is run at least partly by renewable energy, this argument falls on deaf ears. In Oakland its another story as the local folks think that a network of BRT will bring people out of their cars, however the first rapid line on San Pablo is just a bus with a red paintjob.

He also compares a number of rapid transit projects with each other and compares cost per passenger in operating cost. But what he doesn't say is the cost of replacing buses every 12 years versus double that for rail, the costs of replacing pavement torn up by heavy vehicles, and the type of BRT project that he is comparing to a type of rail project. Comparing the New York Second Avenue Subway to the Silver Line is hardly an accurate apples to apples comparison given the capacity constraints of 60 foot buses versus multi car trains and cost sharing with the Big Dig. In the past, BRT projects like the Pittsburgh Busways and the Los Angeles Harbor Freeway busway have failed to garner the passengers that were promised. In fact, the LA Harbor Busway has now been changed into an HOV lane instead of a dedicated bus only lane due to low ridership. In an interesting 2003 transit comparison, Houston's 6 HOV busways carried 43,225 transit passengers, but Portland's Max System with 3 corridors carried 79,600. While the HOV lane carried almost 75,000 people in individual vehicles, that increased auto use also contributed to sprawl and arterial congestion when they got off the freeway. On the other hand, Portland's light rail system has aided a massive downtown revitalization and led to lower congestion costs to each person that costs in Houston.

In addition, from 1990 to 2005, 73% of the ridership increases have come from increased rail usage. Even with the consent decree in LA and much investment in buses around the country, bus ridership has stayed flat while rail ridership has soared.

While some of those who promote BRT mean well, most of them believe transit is for the poor are out to kill good rapid transit. The citizens of this country as evidenced by the transit space race have shown their preference, its up to us to make sure those investments get the best possible return.

What We Should Really Learn From Curitiba

The Candyland blog reminded me why Curitiba has been able to do what people go down there to see. What they see is shiny red buses as a low cost option to real rapid transit. That's also what they bring back to the United States after the trip shows them how great the buses are. But there is a bigger lesson they aren't learning from Curitiba. Starting in 1964 with a military coup, they radically planned for growth management of their city. This included intensive land use planning and a similar idea to our smart growth movement for curbing sprawl. Jamie Lerner, the mastermind behind Curitiba's revitalization was essentially the Brazilian Jane Jacobs and the ideas behind Curitiba would make road warriors and libertarians sulk.

(translated from Portuguese) the managing idea of the project was the creation of a composed infrastructure for a zone of great concentration of activities and of raised habitational density. The concentration of the urban activities had as purpose to revitalize(sic) “the street”, considering it with a primordial function of the life of the community. The proposals for the Structural Axles of Curitiba keep some similarities with this project.

This project in France of Jaime Lerner would show up in Curitiba as the corridors project. In keeping with the allowance of densification in downtown, there needed to be a new place to grow. It would be decided that this would occur on corridors and tie the transport together with the land use.

The same attitude demonstrated in these projects of architecture, with emphasis in the distribution of spaces and its relations with the structure and infrastructure of the buildings, if transposed for urbanism, in the interrelation between zoning and system of collective transport....The main quarrel of the Preliminary Plan was which proposal of growth would have to be adjusted for the future of Curitiba. The idea of city delimited for a green cinturão, seemed impracticable ahead of the possibility of a indeterminate growth. The orientation of development from linear axles, in contraposition to the concentrical city of the Agache Plan, seemed most adequate

Given the ability of cities to extend indefinitely, the corridor system would address this issue allowing corridors to grow up while not sprawling. In 1971 Jaime Lerner became mayor of the city. Trained as an architect and with the help of a dictatorship, he was able to impose his vision on the people for better or worse. After over 40 years of planning, Curitiba is what it is, it's what would happen if an architect and smart growther took over a city. But folks should not come back from that city just thinking, "what a cheap bus, lets do it here". They should be repeating the three premises of the Curitiba plan: use of the ground, collective transport and circulation. And in the United States, you might as well build rail, because that is what developers write checks for and building a busway to Curitiba standards costs the same as rail.

Tales of Transmilenio

I think the post below to the Light Rail_Now Yahoo Group is important. The BRT phenomenon is getting out of hand with people saying that its just like LRT but cheaper. Well its not just like LRT for several reasons.

Non Level Boarding - You can't build a bus that lines up exactly with the curb. And taking a bus like Oakland has and just painting it rapid isn't the same. I'm not sure why the equity people are letting them get away with this given that LRT is first class and BRT is obviously third world.

Ride Quality - You can make roads as smooth as possible but in terms of ride quality its night and day. Buses lurch forward, trains glide on the rails. I took buses in Austin to school for 5 years, it wasn't always pleasant during stop and go traffic. Now I take BART and Muni Metro and its amazing the difference.

Operating costs - Operating costs on LRT are lower. It's proven by the data in the National Transit Database. You can hook trains together, buses are limited to 60 meters and no one would allow anything longer on the roads. Labor is the biggest factor in costs and buses cost more because there must be more of them in order to reach the capacity of LRT. This is something critics often ignore.

Attraction of Passengers - When the Yellow line opened in Portland, it was the ultimate test. It basically replaced a bus line that had operated the same route giving a somewhat real comparison of ridership between the two. Guess what happened? 100% ridership increase. That's right, the line doubled its ridership by putting in LRT.

Attraction of TOD - Buses don't do it because developers don't trust them. Even fixed guideway BRT isn't trusted. The reason is because that road can be opened to cars, and that bus line could be moved. Rails in the ground signify people are in it for the long haul and investing in their future.

There are many more but let me continue by saying that these comparisons to third world countries systems are way off base. This is proven by the Hartford Example. Hartford is building a BRT line and guess what the cost per mile is according to the FTA. $55 million a mile where they paved over a rail right of way. Why not build rail? Eugene just completed an BRT line that is single tracked. They are saying you can do it too! But they never tell you the tricks. Below is a comment from Lyndon Henry responding to arguments for BRT in an article by US News and World Report. Enjoy.

The promotion of "BRT" as some kind of "just as good but cheaper" alternative to LRT is a swindle.

The Bogota Transmilenio "BRT" system featured in the article would easily cost more than LRT in fully allocated lifecycle costs while delivering far fewer benefits. Transmilenio consists of a fully segregated 4-lane busway with specially designed extra-long buses operated by dirt-cheap Third World labor. Loadings are far beyond
what US urban travellers would tolerate and ADA compliance is dubious. Average speed is 26 km/hr, or about 16 mph - about as fast as a slower LRT.

The busway was installed by appropriating existing street lanes for transit - no wonder it's hailed for its "low cost"! Where is there a large American city in which the transit agency can simply appropriate four lanes out of a major central-city arterial for dedicated transit use?

The costs of surface Transmilenio are almost invariably compared with those of an underground metro - and, gee, the surface busway always seems to come out ahead. Duh. How about comparing with the cost of a comparable surface electric LRT?

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that Bogota has an extremely transit-dependent population - Colombia's per-capita motor vehicle ownership is approximately 6% that of the USA. And the country is very poor, with per-capita income about 1/5 the US average. Factoring this into the $350 million cost of Bogota's Transmilenio busway system results in an equivalent cost of about $1.3 billion in the USA, or about $55 million per mile for Bogota's 24-mile system. That's about on a par with some US LRT systems with subway sections - such as Minneapolis' s Hiawatha line.

Why is it that just about every "BRT" promotion I see boils down to a huge flim-flam for dummies?

Don't fall for the BRT sham. It's too good to be true.

Section 5309 New Starts

So the 2008 Funding for New Starts projects came out. Guess what, the small starts program gives bus projects a nod. What a waste of money. These are projects that the transit agencies should do themselves. So called rapid buses that only have signal pre-emption and nextbus timing technology should not be allowed under fixed guideway. The reason is because there is no fixed guideway.

Another interesting thing is the waste of money that came up is the Harford Busway. They could have built light rail for less and more of it. $50 million a mile for grade separated BRT is ridiculous. They are going to prove that if you're going to build BRT, you might as well build LRT because you'll get more out of it and at a lower operating cost.

Charlotte Citizens Understand the Space Race

So Charlotte is being held up by a lot of other cities around the country as one that will beat them if they don't get moving. It's a good position to be in as there is nothing easier that hanging in there and having hope on the attack instead of being afraid that someone is coming. There are always bumps in the road and Charlotte has had theirs but it I now think I understand the problems many cities are having with the Federal Government based on an article in today's Observer.

No matter how hard they try to push bus rapid transit, people just don't want it. In Connecticut, the Hartford Busway which will be a true BRT is costing $50 million per mile. Thats a lot of cash for a bus. And it's also more than the cost of building a rapid streetcar line on the same right of way. What is the point in that? Are they going to prove that it's just as cheap and useful as Curitiba that way? That model was based on easily changeable land use policy (NIMBY doesn't exist in South America) and cheap labor (easy in South America as well).

But that won't change what people on the Southeast Corridor want in Charlotte. They see the BRT as a lowly gesture in their direction. Why are the other corridors getting light rail and we are stuck with the BRT? Why aren't we going to be treated the same? This happened in Atlanta with MARTA. The rest of the system into the poor areas was to be built out as bus lines and that smacked of racism. Is the current trend towards BRT just a way to give poor citizens second class transit? Is it a way to keep transit only for the poor instead of providing rapid transit options for everyone? Well I have a feeling that the people who push BRT believe in these things. They aren't doing it for the betterment of cities but rather to keep transit down.

There are some good places where BRT might be the best option, but I feel like most BRT fanatics just don't like rail. They don't like that people ride it, they feel like it takes money from roads and they don't understand why not everyone wants to live in the Suburbs and drive to work everyday. To them i say, I don't understand you either, but perhaps we should work something out so that we stop wasting money on something that people just don't want. It's been voiced over and over again in public statements. Statements from Charlotte below.

Here are some of comments made by people at the Southeast Corridor public meetings:

"I want equity. Do not give us buses because we are poorer and have more minorities."

"Matthews-Bus Rapid Transit makes one feel cut off from Charlotte."

"I prefer commuter rail in the Southeast Corridor."

"Light rail benefits the Southeast Corridor."

"SE residents will not ride bus rapid transit! Light rail transit is the only viable alternative!"

The comments go on and on. Interestingly, nobody stood up at any of these meetings and said anything like "I like the busway" or "Busways are a good idea."

Seems like they should get what they want, they are the ones paying for it.

Charlotte's Next Move

Charlotte is a notable member and up and comer to the Transit Space Race. Their plans are ambitious and include 5 new rapid transit lines and a streetcar. After a 1998 half cent sales tax was raised to expand transit. The first line, the Lynx Blue Line (South Corridor) is under construction and will be complete at the end of this year.

The next line, the northeast corridor, is planned to run from downtown to the University of North Carolina Charlotte. Leadership from the University President, City Council and Ron Tober of CATS were very helpful in keeping the region on track after some costs for the south corridor were over budget and the community was worried about the long range plan. After some calls to rescind the tax from some libertarians egged on by Wendell Cox and a postponement of BRT to study Light Rail on the southeast corridor, things are looking up again.

So it comes as no surprise that even before the northeast corridor has gone into preliminary engineering in the new starts process, people are building TOD on properties adjacent to the future line as reported today by the Charlotte Observer. This is amazing and shows that new transit lines really have the ability to shape neighborhoods. I'm interested to see what happens to the next few years but as for now, Charlotte is up there with Denver in my book.

(The Other) Subway to the Sea

With Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa planning the subway to the sea on Wilshire in Los Angeles, I think Mayor Newsom should start his own program in San Francisco. One of most ridden bus lines in the United States, the 38 Geary is always plastered with faces on the windows because it is so full and needs more capacity. The Geary Corridor also has the limited service 38L which acts as an express bus. So why are they going to spend millions of dollars to take away a lane and save riders only a few minutes while using the same buses?

The first step of the second subway to the sea is the 3rd Street light rail which opens in the next few months. The next step is the central subway project which leaves a spur going west to link up a future Geary Subway before it turns off to go under Stockton(which by the way should continue past broadway). The decision to build the GS to at least Masonic though is very far off while they wait for more money. But really the line is ready to go.

So the problem with this picture is that while the United States FWHA would put in 90% of the cost for a road that desperately needed to be built, they would do it. This is the top example of what is happening with the new starts program. Funding for major urban rail projects is getting stymied for artery clogging BRT and unneeded roads by folks who don't like to invest in infrastructure needed to make cities work. aka the libertarian movement. Where would they be without the Federal Highway Program in their arguments? Probably arguing for better transit to support the free market.

The point is that projects like Geary are the projects that need to be funded. Folks shouldn't be plastered on the windows bus service is not adequate. This is why the case needs to be made for a major transit infrastructure initiative that rivals that of the Highway expansion of the last century. The first project? Geary Subway to the Sea

A Picture Worth 15,000 People

From the Treehugger Page... There is a discussion of lane capacity needed to move 15,000 people per hour. Guess what does it best...Rapid Rail Transit. Check out the link.

Buses are Better? No They Aren't

So the good folks of Boston are having a debate. Should they restore streetcars on the Arborway Green Line or Replace them with Rapid Bus. Distinction....BRT has its own lanes, Rapid Bus does not. Ridership on the line is in decline from 28,000 in 1988 to 14,400 in 2005. This is really all i need to know to make a decision but lets look at what the bus lovers (actually just afraid of change) are saying.

(Note: Buses are the workhorses of most transit systems but high ridership trunk lines should be more cost effective to extend the reach of bus service in a region. Light Rail serves this need by having lower operating costs per passenger by A. attracting new passengers and B. efficiently bringing them to thier destination)

Tracks Make Pavement Hard to Maintain - Well so do buses. Actually, recent issues have arisen from the Orange Line and its pavement cracking. While this might be an issue with the contractors, it also tells the story of pavement and buses. The weight of a bus is just too much. If they are so worried about the pavement from rail...they should be really worried about the pavement from buses.

Bicycle Hazards - Yes riding over the tracks can be an issue. But Portland has signs and warnings for cyclists. I don't think that a few folks ignoring the warnings and taking the spill every year would be enough to warrant the line not run rail.

Traffic Flow - Here they say that traffic flow for cars will be impeded by the streetcars. Well isn't it already impeded by buses every day? I don't get this logic... why are people so worried about traffic flow? We shouldn't design the world for cars, we should design the world for pedestrians which means that a little traffic calming never hurt anyone. If you need to speed that bad go to Talladega.

Restricted Curbside Access - Well this is a no brainer. In Portland they have bulbouts. And if it takes up 7 parking spaces, so what...see above world for cars link. Heck there is probably an answer including creating several bulbouts for each of the door ends keeping space in the center for cars and deliveries. It's not an insurmountable engineering task and its still not enough to warrant bus only service.

Then they give a plethora of reasons why they feel bus is better... which i will answer tomorrow.

Cost Effectiveness and BRT

Recently many cities have gone to great lengths to try to second guess what the FTA is thinking. No one knows what they are thinking and some think they are crazy but I think American's are lazy. Lazy meaning they don't want to make the real investment in rail and want to do things on the cheap.

The reason why i think they are lazy is because they want instant results. 'Give it to me now' they say. Well here's the deal. The only satisfying way to get what you want is to work hard and achieve the result through that hard work and sacrifice. This is something i learned when i ran in college. You put in the miles upon miles and you get the results. You sleep all day and watch tv and play video games...you're not going to run under 4 minutes for a mile.

With all that being said my 80 miles a week in college was an investment, an investment in my future running. This also relates in a strange way to transit. Why do people think that BRT is a good idea? Cost Effective means 'yeah we know it sucks but we're gonna invest a dollar in our future rather than 5'. That is lazy. That is the I want it now attitude. It has been proven that people don't ride buses like rail. So why are we investing in inferior infrastructure? Is it because Grover Norquist wants to drown our government in a pool? Yes, partially because hacks like Wendell Cox, Ken Orski and Alan Pisarski have the ears of people that make transportation decisions, especially in places like Georgia.

I'm all for being 'cost effective' when it comes to building a transit system for what its worth and not gold plating it. But when it comes to an investment in the future, lets build a real transportation system that has rail, and not just the same ole buses that no one rides.

The reason why i'm writing this is because today in the Twin Cities a consultant said that the Cedar Avenue BRT project was more 'Cost Effective' than rail and that the corridor didn't have the densities to support the investment. Well it's a two way street buddy. If it doesn't have it now, and you change the zoning it will have it later. Bus won't change your land use. So in these schemes where transit officials hope that they get BRT to LRT, I'd say that they are going to have BRT for the rest of their lives. Bus doesn't build density, therefor doesn't grow ridership...simple before and after.

It probably doesn't help that BRT is pushed by the Oil and Auto Industries. This helps their cause for more freeways and wars and they know it. If they really wanted a cost effective way of doing things, they would have used all the money for the Iraq War on transportation...but thats for another post.