Silver Lie Continues

People still aren't happy with the Silver Line BRT in Boston. They want the replacement for the rapid transit line they were promised.

“Why not invest in the light rail system as the community has been asking for 20 years,” said Robert Terrell, a member of the Washington Street Corridor Coalition, a group of organizations that have been fighting to replace a segment of the Orange Line that was removed in the 1980s.

Sound familiar San Francisco??? Oh yes. The Geary Subway that was promised after the B Geary line was ripped out is going to be a BRT line now as well. Will we ever learn?

A Suburban Double Standard

An interesting quote from the folks in Massachusetts.

Egan said that Governor Deval Patrick and Aloisi remain committed to bringing rail to the region because "we will not get the same economic bang for the buck" with bus service.

This is in response to the South Coast commuter rail alternatives analysis in which they were examining express buses as an alternative. I never understood this need to study the alternatives to a commuter rail line like express bus when for the most part the reason to build the line would be to take advantage of the rail ROW. It's either cost effective and useful or its not.

Now on the issue of bus and rail and the quote above. It seems like a bit of a double standard. Why would you say something like that to the suburbs about rail when you are doing exactly the opposite in the core with the Silver Line BRT tunnel. Can't have it both ways guys.

More Silver Line

Bumped Post

Update 12.11.08: The Boston Globe is reporting that the Silver Line is getting down-rated to a Medium Low in the next New Starts report coming in February. This means that it would not be able to get funding because a medium rating is required. It's primarily due to the debt load of over $8 billion that the MBTA is carrying. Bill also mentions the atrocious ridership of the existing Waterfront Silver Line segment, half of which is going to be cut. It costs $9.16 per boarding in subsidy versus the Washington Street Section which is 48 cents. Amazing.

Bill reports that the folks at Boston Common don't like the Silver Lie BRT tunnel. Why would you tear up an existing usable tunnel that held rail vehicles for a poorly thought out bus tunnel? It just doesn't make any sense. But alas I'm sure it will continue to go through its approvals...

Betting on the Wrong Horse

Switchback is a great Boston transit blog. A recent post discusses how the MBTA bet on the wrong mode with gas prices on the rise. Some of the line is run on electricity with dual mode buses, but much of it is diesel buses.

The city bet on the wrong horse, or rather, bet on the wrong bus. Within the past ten years the T has sacrificed the A line tracks and half of the E, while pushing for a “bus rapid transit” system where residents demanded light rail. A light rail network that would ultimately cost less in infrastructure than the BRT network. All of this has been prompted by a fierce anti-rail ideology at work in both the MBTA and mayor’s office.

The anti-rail, pro-bus, pro-car agenda ignores basic logic and economics. Trains hold more people, run at faster speeds through tunnels, and offer comfortable, single-seat rides to anywhere in the urban core of Boston. They do this in vehicles which can operate for forty years as opposed to the ten to twelve of their rubber-wheeled counterparts. And they’re cheaper to run.

Personally I think building a subway for buses is insane especially when you have to destroy two perfectly good light rail tunnels to do it. You can't go as fast with drivers in the tunnels and you still get that awful bouncy jerkey bus ride and low capacity vehicles. Boston will increase its budget deficit operating these schemes. Perhaps the rise in oil will change some minds. It's not too late.

"...They Wasted Everyone's Time and Money"

Update: I wrote this post last week and this morning right after posting, there is an article in the Washington Post about Mary Peters Ideology when it comes to transit and investment in infrastructure. You can find it here.

In the Washington Post there was an article which discussed that even though the Dulles Airport Extension to Metro has gone through all of the hoops that the FTA has set up for it, it might still not get funded. Why? Because the Bushies don't like rail transit. In fact they don't like it so much that they are willing to kill it because of a famous road project that cost way more than it was supposed to and still hasn't delivered on its environmental offsets; The Big Dig.

Federal officials remain skeptical of the plan to extend Metrorail to Dulles International Airport and might reject it, even though their consultants recently found that the proposal meets requirements for full funding, government and project sources said.

Officials with the Federal Transit Administration say they are concerned about the price tag and the specter of another Big Dig, the Boston project built by the same contractor in charge of the Dulles rail line, which took years longer and cost millions more than planned, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the negotiations are sensitive. In addition, the agency has been reluctant to promote large-scale transit projects.

And what is this comment about moving away from infrastructure as Quade points out? Surely that can't be true? Why didn't they say the same thing about three other projects in the New Starts pipeline that have big budgets? Seattle's line to the University($1.6 Billion), New Jersey's Access to the Core ($7.3 Billion), and the Long Island East Side Access Project ($2.6 Billion). But the Dulles project is about $2.06 Billion. So what's the rub? Why pick on this project? This screams a basic ideological bias. But tell us something we didn't know right? Congressional backers of the project even stated to the Post:

Officials on Capitol Hill, in Richmond and at the airports authority's headquarters have speculated in recent days about what the problem might be. Some say the FTA has long been skeptical of expensive rail projects; in recent years, it has more often championed bus rapid transit projects.

Bingo. There has been no recent evidence to be against big rail projects. In fact does anyone know of a big rail project that hasn't delivered recently? I know the Silver Line BRT in Boston hasn't delivered on promises and locals call it the Silver Lie but light rail projects in Denver, Houston, Charlotte, Minneapolis and St. Louis have delivered, all of them far exceeding ridership projections.

But basically the DOT is waging an ideological battle. And so far, as Ryan states at The Bellows quite succinctly, "...they wasted everyone's time and money".

As the linked Post piece makes clear, it’s not the Silver Line’s specifics that are the issue, it’s an ideological opposition to big new transit lines. I think that’s dumb, but I think it’s even more dumb to nonetheless pretend that normal operating rules apply with regard to consideration of big new transit lines only to back out for ideological reasons after all the planning has been done and construction is underway. At any moment during this process, the feds could have said, we’re not going to go ahead with this money, because we don’t like new heavy rail lines. Instead, they wasted everyone’s time and money.

This comes just a few days after the release of a National Surface Transportation Commission Report panned by DOT Secretary Mary "Bikes Aren't Transportation" Peters where the dissenting side led by the Secretary claimed falsely that there were not enough cost-effective rail projects to spend money on. Looks like there is a project in DC that needs some money and has merit. And there are more like it such as the Subway to the Sea in Los Angeles.

But in addition, there have been rumors floating around that certain pieces of that report pertaining to light rail and electric transit were approved by the commission but taken out mysteriously before the final printing. When learning about pro-rail segments being taken out of the report, Commissioner,Staunch Conservative, and rail advocate Paul Weyrich stated,

“It is disappointing that after the paragraphs indicated were passed by a nine to three vote that someone without ever asking me would see to it to do away with these important policy considerations, Weyrich said to NCI. “ It is the kind of gutter politics which make people hate their government, and Washington in general."

Now we know where the battle lines are drawn. It's time for a new direction.

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.

So Tell Us Why Bus is Better...

The folks at Better Transit Without Trolleys want us to believe a few things below...mainly the 5 points that will be refuted below...

Faster Travel- "Buses Can Provide Faster Service Than Trolleys" is what they say. However we know that diesel engines whether hybrid or not are inferior in terms of acceleration when it comes to moving large loads of people. And with stops short before getting back on the main rail line this will allow greater time savings than a bus. Also, buses going into downtown have to contend with traffic and snow while an LRV will enter the subway system for enhanced people movement. This can even be improved with an rail lane during peak hours and pre-empted signaling. The rails will also be a snow clearing priority...experience from the Silver Line shows that snow is stored in the dedicated lanes after a storm. See picture.

They also complain about cars double parking. Tickets and information can easily take care of that issue. Also the idea of a huge LRV hitting or even just waiting with many angry passengers behind your car is a great deterrent.

Less Waiting- By claiming 17,000 (It's actually more like 14,000 now) passengers they believe that the traffic density does not warrant rail service at increased headways. But the fact is that if bus service continues there will be a continued decline in ridership. If the traffic density of 28,000 from 1988 is to be brought back, this line will need greater vehicle capacity. A band aid simply won't work and neither will limited bus capacity.

More Service - What does more service mean? They mean more frequent service and claim streetcars cost more than buses. Well according to the NTAD this is not true and actually rail is significantly less than buses in terms of expense per rider. This is a ridiculous claim that has been shot down over and over again. They also say that capital costs are less. Well thats not true either given that rail vehicles have a 30 year time frame while buses last 12. That means in order to have the buses you need to buy two for every LRV but then 12 years later you need to buy 2 more meaning you have to have 4 buses for every LRV in cost!!!! And each of those two buses per LRV has a driver meaning even greater operating costs.

Accessibility- They say...can't do it with trolleys...no...we don't know the facts...and we aren't changing our minds. Basically they say it will cost more to apply ADA to streetcars than buses. However streetcars can be low floor and wheelchair accessible also. If it needs to go into the subway and has a certain platform height then neighborhood platforms can be built. They are not that expensive and can easily be created on the bulbouts. Their claim is expense but it should be called an investment. Building and continuing rail operations is an investment, while buses should be seen as a non-returning expense.

Safer Streets for All- this was discussed in the previous post with the bike safety.

What the above excuses tells me is that merchants don't see the direct benefits of rail to them. More riders and greater service means a better situation for them however for some reason they believe buses are the answer. If buses were the answer then all of the rail lines in Boston would have been replaced with buses by now. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding (eg ridership) has dropped by 50% since 1988. They should get it back with rail.