The Twin Cities Entrance into the Space Race

Welcome Minneapolis-St. Paul to the Space Race. Let's see what they're up to.

LRT

Central Corridor - This line has received lots of press and was just approved by the Met Council.

Southwest Corridor - This is the next light rail line. It will travel to the Southwest through some high employment centers in that part of the region.

Bottineau Boulevard - This line was going to be BRT but might be changed back to LRT.

Robert Street Corridor - South of St. Paul, they're doing the alternatives analysis now.

Commuter Rail

North Star Corridor - This line is under construction.

Red Rock Corridor - This line will go to the Southeast of St. Paul and will be the high speed rail connection to Chicago. If its electrified this would be a great addition.

Rush Line Corridor - This line will go Northeast of St. Paul.

BRT

Cedar Avenue and I-35W


That's a lot of transit. They've also just finished a Minneapolis Streetcar study as well.

Any Type of Rubber Tire Can Go on Concrete

I know I give BRT a hard time here. I've been trying really hard to see how BRT works and know that if done right, BRT can be a very effective tool. Cleveland seems to be proving that an investment in true BRT with its own lanes can be very powerful. $4.3 Billion dollars has been invested on the Euclid corridor in Cleveland. Plain Dealer:

One big reason for the energy is the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's $200 million Euclid Corridor project, which is reshaping Euclid Avenue around a bus rapid transit line. Pundits have long derided the project, funded primarily by federal money, as a boondoggle. Media coverage has focused primarily on businesses that failed during construction, along with the hassle of negotiating a sea of orange traffic cones.

The mortgage-foreclosure crisis, which has left as many as 12,000 homes vacant in Cleveland neighborhoods, has also obscured the impending rebirth of Euclid Avenue. But the developers say they see what's coming. With the RTA project due for a ribbon-cutting in October, they're rushing to renovate empty buildings and buy vacant lots.

But in the back of my mind I'm always worried about the folks who are pushing the technology as an alternative to rail on corridors that need a higher capacity mode. A lot of these folks just want to stall the process or just don't like transit at all. They even complain that higher density development will result. Oh the horror! From the Washington Post:

Cuccinelli, Marshall and other state leaders, including Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford), acknowledge that they are in the minority. But they have long criticized the rail line to Dulles. Its costly, four-station diversion through Tysons Corner, they say, is more about helping developers reap the profits of high-density development than about moving people to the airport. Its dependence on revenue from the Dulles Toll Road to cover a huge chunk of construction costs would put the burden of any future cost escalations on commuters.
...

Howell and other critics of the project believe the solution for the Dulles corridor is in a type of service known as bus rapid transit, an express bus service with dedicated lanes and stations, allowing commuters to move as quickly as they would on a rail line without getting stuck in traffic.

This type of bus service was ruled out by local officials and business leaders because of the difficulty of building dedicated lanes through Tysons Corner and because of the increased number of riders that a true rail line would draw. But it is so much cheaper that it should be revisited, boosters say.

But here is where the wheels on the bus come off for me. Officials in Miami Dade County are discussing the possibility of expanding the South Busway to four lanes to allow for carpoolers and HOT lanes. This is the dream of every road warrior that wants to build a busway instead of a rail line. The idea that they can co-opt the line for cars is always in the back of their minds. While this is not the thought of well intentioned Mayors like Jaime Lerner of Curitiba and Enrique Penalosa of Bogota, it is the thought of many in the United States including Florida County Commissioners. From the Miami Herald:

Imagine widening the Busway from two lanes to four and giving buses and carpoolers with at least three passengers a free ride. Then sell the excess capacity to solo drivers willing to ''buy'' their way out of congestion with a variably priced toll that would rise when lanes are crowded and drop when they aren't.

Instead of encountering dozens of incredibly looooooong lights at the busy cross streets on today's Busway, imagine flying over all the major intersections as the government guarantees a reliable 50-mph journey from Dadeland to Florida City or the turnpike interchange near Southwest 112th Avenue. It may sound pie-in-the-sky today, but that pie could be baking in the near future.

At the urging of County Commissioner Dennis Moss, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority are jointly studying ways to bring ''managed lanes'' to the Busway. ''It's the most exciting thing I've worked on in quite a while,'' MPO planner Larry Foutz said.

BRT is built on roads. Cars go on roads. So therefore...

Reading the New Starts Report

I cracked open the 2009 New Starts Report today and started reading through the ratings and commentary, there were a few themes that jumped out at me.

Bus Bias: We know that the FTA has been anti-rail recently from the uproar over the Dulles decision, but the new starts report is laden with pro-bus undertones. It's not just that they are for buses, but that they don't think transit is important and are looking for short term cheap solutions that don't address the problems. I suggest a look at the promotion of BRT in the Small Starts category. Take a look and see how many of them have dedicated guideways, very few, most with a small percentage of the running way. To me, just as Aaron said over at Metro Rider LA today, this is a waste of money. And as much as I like streetcars, they need their own lane if they are going to be doing line haul operations.

The FTA has introduced a new metric to judge projects called Making the Case, which is highly subjective and seems to push against the choice of locally preferred alternative (LPA) by local jurisdictions. While the government might want to be watchful over money, I don't understand where they would know better than the locals about what type of transportation is wanted or needed.

A few examples from Sacramento ,Charlotte, and Orlando.

Sacramento - However, the “case” does not explain why an extension of LRT is better than anything else that can be done to meet mobility needs in the corridor. Downtown express buses are dismissed as adding congestion to downtown streets without quantifying their effect, and of not serving intermediate stations in the existing South LRT line without providing evidence of travel demand to such areas. Joint development opportunities presented in the Making the Case document are reflected in the project’s ratings for transit-supportive land use.

Charlotte - The “case” for the project acknowledges that the Northeast Corridor is low density with auto-oriented development patterns. Given the description of the existing corridor, it is unclear from the “case” for the project why the LRT line is preferred over more economical bus improvements.

Orlando - The CFRCT project would result in a new rail transit line running north-south parallel to I-4 and through downtown Orlando. The “case” for the project provides no discussion of travel patterns within this corridor. While travel time comparisons between rail, bus, and private vehicle were presented for three origin-destination pairs, there was no explanation of why these pairs are highlighted. I-4 is described as congested and getting worse, but the “case” for the project provides no justification that it will effectively serve I-4 travel markets, or why a significant investment in rail operating at 15-minute peak frequencies is necessary in a corridor in which existing bus transit service is described as “limited.”

I'll tell you why Mr. New Starts writer guy, because people don't get excited about riding a bus on a freeway. Developers don't spend money on dense development around freeway bus service. When we think of why cities build rail, which is to attract new riders, new development, and increase operating efficiency, we know now that these things don't matter any more to the folks in the Bush FTA and pushing economical bus improvements gets minimal or no ridership and land use increases. You get what you pay for.

Operations efficiency importance reduced: The operating efficiency measure that was once measured has been rolled into our favorite overarching measure, cost effectiveness. Again people will say that this is rolled into the cost effectiveness measure but not separating it out from the annualized project costs of the C/E limits visibility of the benefits. It also ignores the fact that generating greater ridership numbers by rail with lower per rider costs can grow ridership for transit agencies at a lower operations cost. Remember that the LACMTA spent over a billion dollars on buses because of the consent decree but ridership stayed flat.

As adopted in the June 2007 Guidance on New Starts and Small Starts Policies and Procedures, FTA will no longer evaluate operating efficiencies as stand-alone criteria. Instead, this document clarifies that the operating efficiencies of proposed New Starts projects are adequately captured under FTA’s measure for cost effectiveness.

Ignoring transit's ability to change land use: It seems that there is an attempt to undermine transit lines that do not go through the densest areas. We already know that when you ask them about measuring economic development, they kind of shrug their shoulders and say "we can't do it". In the most recent NPRM the FTA stated, "Although many studies have shown, ex poste, that transit projects have had an impact on economic development, few predictive tools are available in standard practice and development of new tools seems infeasible in the short run." In other words, we don't want to do it.

There is another new measure in the land use category called "Performance and Impacts of Policies". This is supposed to assess how policies to promote transit oriented development are working. Well in the North Corridor in Charlotte, its reported that the market is not there yet. Well duh, the development market follows the line, yet its penalized for not being there yet (gets a medium instead of a high). This is contrary to what we've seen along the South Corridor, which is documented in the North Corridor report.

The Charlotte CBD has seen a considerable amount of residential as well as commercial development in recent years. In the South Corridor, the pace of development has been slow but is accelerating with $300 million in projects completed and over $1.5 million proposed in station areas outside of Uptown.

Strong regional growth is forecast(75 percent by 2030) and a market analysis for the Northeast Corridor suggested that just over 5,000 acres (84 percent of station area land) had the potential for redevelopment. Current market conditions in most Northeast Corridor station areas are relatively weak, however, and barriers exist that appear to limit development potential in the near term.

I'm not quite sure how they came up with a medium rating with the information that they give above. How do they decide to rate these things anyway? I've read the land use guidance and it doesn't make it very clear either. Another thing that does not make sense to me is that even if the city has good transit supportive land use policies, the existing land use could kill it, pushing rail's value for building places instead of just transporting people down and marginalizing it. I'm sure that is their hope, and was pointed out quite well in a recent editorial in the Washington Post:

Shaping cities is both a goal and a consequence of investing in transportation infrastructure. Sadly, the Federal Transit Administration seems unaware of this.
...

But this is more than just eleventh-hour federal shock therapy over money. The FTA's stance is emblematic of long-standing, misguided national policy concerning all forms of rail transportation. America has been persistently reluctant to think long-term and to make long-term investments in transit serving both regional and national interests.

Reauthorization is coming up soon, hopefully some of these things and misunderstandings of transit's power to change its environment can be changed.

"...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.

When Alternatives Analysis is a Wasteful Exercise

JMD at Transit in Utah points out a few projects in Los Angeles that will have to go through the AA process to get federal funding and finish their environmental assesment when it ends up wasting money. 1. The Subway to the Sea - Why would you do an AA with a BRT alternative when there is already BRT running on the street? 2. Expo Phase II - The first half is Light Rail, why require a transfer to BRT? 3. The Downtown Connector - This was supposed to connect the gold line to the blue line directly without a transfer. But why would you study a BRT connection between the two when the point was to connect the directly.

I understand doing an AA on a new corridor and in some places BRT is the best tool for the job, but forcing a study of it as an alternative when its obviously a waste of money is ridiculous. Use it to study different route alternatives instead. Besides, it looks like we are going to have to save all the money we can with the crazy inflation that is going on and the lowering of the dollar's value against other world currencies.

News From the Other Side of the State

Probably a bit overshadowed by the transit tax ballot measure in Charlotte these last few days, Raleigh Durham poked its head above water again to discuss a possible new transit plan after the FTA mercilessly cut the initial one using our favorite cost effectiveness measure. The interesting thing about this is that the region is very polycentric and its travel patterns seem a bit abnormal to me for typical hub and spoke transit operations. However there should be a line that connects the two major cities. The article cites a possible commuter rail BRT combination, but we'll be watching for more information as it comes available.

In the Triangle, rising costs and low ridership forecasts forced TTA last year to shelve its quest to build a 28-mile track for trains that would run several times every hour, 18 hours a day, from Durham through Research Triangle Park to Raleigh.

But the advisory group has not ruled out making TTA's tracks the spine of a rail, bus and streetcar network that could stretch across the region and into neighboring counties.

Why The Decision in Houston is a Big Deal for Everyone

While the decision to go with Light Rail for 5 corridors caught a lot of people by surprise in Houston, it might have opened up a floodgate for cities to get funding for new transit projects. I can't stress enough how big this network effect is to cities who want to build new rail transit networks. Because the federal funding process is getting tighter, cities that want to build rail networks are going to have to get creative and Denver, Houston, and Salt Lake City have so far done that in their quest for funding.

It's interesting to note that some folks around the country might have been paying attention. Mayor Funkhouser in Kansas City believes that its a regional plan or nothing for his area. Some have thought it was a bit heavy handed of him to declare Clay Chastain's plan dead, but if he's thinking about really getting federal funding for a new transit system, he needs to lead the region towards a solution that will eventually get funding. Through the current rules, it looks like a high ridership starter line that can pass the current administration's cost effectiveness test (which Chastain's plan might not have) is how it should start. The other reason is that you'll need this first line to fund an extended network later.

But because the current rules are geared towards low end BRT projects, (The Orange Line and Euclid BRT projects would have not passed the required Medium cost-effectiveness rating rule the administration wants) Houston's recent deal might breathe new life into the application process for new expansion lines in cities that want to drastically expand their systems. Currently cities like Minneapolis are building a line every 10 years, meaning a simple 6 line network could take 40 more years. A problem might arise however with cities that don't have a starter line so that the rail bias can be attained for ridership measures.

It's been pretty easy to get extensions funded by the FTA in the past and they are generally the best modeled in terms of ridership. But the FTA has been making projects cut down their costs to make the rating. The Central Corridor has had a cap on how much it can cost meaning the locals don't have complete control over some of the decisions including a tunnel under the university because of that cost. This is a project that should have been built about 30 years ago but people are just starting to get it. But Minneapolis has plans for two more lines, the Southwest Corridor and the Northwest Corridor. So if cities are going to get serious about building expansive transit networks, Houston has shown the way to go for the time being. With a new administration who knows what could happen, but if you have to dance with who brung ya, it seems like Houston has opened the door to the ball.

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.

We Need Subways, But How Will We Pay For Them?

Los Angeles
Now here's an idea, lets pay for transit lines like we used to, tie them to real estate. Obviously this isn't a way to pay for the whole line (unless zoning was lifted and there was a development free for all) but it should be considered for partial funding. It's possible that a development fund could be put together to fund stations, or private developers could bid to build high rises with the stations. I'm sure there are a lot of other innovative ways to create a TIF district. Maybe there could be a roof tax for every new unit along the line. Anyone have any innovative ideas for funding transit?

San Francisco
Speaking of subway dreams, Polk Street Blog reminds everyone that there will be a BRT planning session for Van Ness in San Francisco. I'm kind of upset that I'm going to miss it because I would have gone and raised some issues with the BRT scheme. This is one of the lines that I think should be a Subway and for two reasons(they both might fit into the same reason):

A. Van Ness is the main through street to get from 101 South to the Golden Gate Bridge. The street is already crowded and on many days traffic does not move an inch. I'm not asking for a freeway because that would be a dumb idea (one that almost happened). But taking away two lanes on the busiest North-South street in town for buses that will still get caught in cross traffic every block? Could ITS realistically keep up with that? There are 31 crossings from Fort Mason and Market street which is only 2 miles.

B. I want to get to the other side of the city in less than 45 minutes and I don't think that is possible on the surface streets. By other side of the city I mean 3 miles between my house(white dot) and the bar where I watch UT play football(Orange Dot) and my friends Mark and Ade live(Orange Circle). It's like I have to plan a day just to see them without driving my car. Taking the J to the 47/49 is a fun bumpy people watching experience, but I imagine I could cut this trip to 25 minutes with a subway which would make it about the same convenience as my car (more so because I don't have to park).

So zone up Van Ness and do it with TIF districts. Make the Van Ness/Geary/Subway to the Sea a state TIF project to see if it works. If it doesn't work as well as it should, well these are good projects that should be funded anyways, if it does work, it can act as a model for cities around the country who might want to build a subway line or extension.

I've made this map before but just so people can see what I'm talking about check out the map below. The blue line is BART, the Red lines are existing MUNI Metro lines. The red dashed lines are planned rail extensions and the yellow dashed lines are subway projects I wish would happen so I can eat dim sum on Geary or watch the UT games on Union without spending 2 hours on the bus and J.

Ridership on the largest bus lines in SF is in this article.

Streetcar Debate: Part 1

There have been some posts by M1ek about streetcars and I thought it would be a good idea to do a back and forth so that folks can trade thoughts and ideas on the subject.

So let's look at some of the issues he brought up:

Capital Costs

Light Rail - These days grade separated light rail will cost you between $45 and $75 million per mile. Denver's most recent line came in at $47 million per mile while Phoenix's line cost $72 because of a major river crossing bridge. It depends mostly on the choice of route, whether it's going to take a lane like Houston or need a tunnel or elevated segment to grade separate intersections. Getting built in street which might require utility movements as light rail excavation is between 16 and 24 inches deep. 90 foot LRV's cost over $3 million per vehicle these days and are often coupled in trains (Charlotte's Siemens vehicles were $3.28 M, Seattle $4M and hold 230 people). Electrification costs run around a $1.5 million per mile. Stations are usually large. Now these costs are much bigger than they need to be, yet no one seems to be taking a stand on building them with too much expense. Locals want every bell and whistle added including fancy stations among other things.

Streetcar - Streetcars depending on the type and track configuration will cost between $20 and $35 million per double track mile. Portland in 2001 completed their line for around $24 million per mile and Little Rock has built a single track mile of their most recent extension with two vehicles for around $8 million or $16 million with a double track. Recent studies in a few cities are saying that these lines will cost around $35 million per mile on average. The lower cost from light rail is due to less of a need for deep track excavation. The Portland streetcar excavation was 12 inches and streets without utilities were chosen to lower costs. Kenosha's line was built for $3 million per mile but that isn't possible anymore with inflation and materials cost.

New heritage vehicles cost around $850,000 (50 feet). For the modern vehicles which are basically smaller LRVs. Portland's streetcar is 66 feet(130 passengers) but the vehicles are modular and can be added to in sections, however the design must fit in a city block so as not to block intersections. The modern vehicles can be coupled but for Portland and Tacoma they have been covered with a bumper. Because the vehicles are smaller than full size LRVs, the track doesn't have to be as hefty. However some cities such as Tacoma have chosen to build to Light Rail standard because they expect the Seattle system to expand to the city eventually. Stations are small, usually shelters with bulb-out sidewalks.

Bus - Obviously buses have a much cheaper capital cost. Or do they? Standard 40 foot diesel buses cost around $330,000 (70 passengers). Many agencies these days are going with hybrid electric buses which are double the diesel. If you want to go with a 60 foot articulated bus (105 passengers), costs can run from $550,000 for diesel or $730,000 for a hybrid. Special BRT buses for Eugene cost about $1 million each. Road costs, on Lamar for example, were $12.6 million for 1.4 miles of 4 lane road reconstruction with all of the utilities($2.25 million per lane mile). Obviously this depends on the type of road and if there are utilities etc. There are a lot of what ifs but I wanted to give an idea of what it costs. There is a lot of repair and upkeep that is paid for not by gas tax funding, but property tax monies collected by cities. Gas tax generally only goes to freeways, state roads, and a select few arterial streets.

To pay for transit expenditures, transit agencies have to raise money. For buses and bus barns, they can be replaced for 'free' by the FTA after they are passed their usable life which according to the FTA is 12 years from first operation. Rail cars can be replaced after 25 years meaning two buses per rail car, or even 4 buses if you consider the capacity of two 40 foot buses versus a streetcar and 6 to 8 for the capacity of LRVs. That is unless you chose artics (Articulated Buses) which hold more people, but are also more expensive.

For rail or BRT projects, Track/Guideway and overhead wire construction can be funded by the new starts program however many projects have been dogged by the cost-effectiveness index. Two major projects dropped out last year including possible rail lines in Raleigh Durham and Columbus Ohio. Other projects including the Metro to Dulles and the Central Corridor in Minneapolis are under serious pressure to get under the medium measure. In the 2005 Safetea-Lu bill over 300 projects were approved for the program, however over the 6 year life of the bill, there won't be that many. In the 2008 New Starts report, there are only 11 funded projects and funding is spread out for a number of years.

Local funding for streetcar projects has come from property owners in Seattle and Parking fees and a number of other sources in Portland. Most of the heritage projects have been paid for with new starts funding that they can't seem to qualify for anymore and CMAQ and other flexible funding sources provided by MPOs.

With so few projects being funded, the FTA has been pushing for smaller rapid bus projects. This isn't like full BRT projects such as the Orange Line in LA, this is for projects like the Metro Rapid in LA which is similar to a limited route. The long and short of it is that cities have had to start looking for other ways to pay for the capital cost of transit lines. This is leading to more BRT projects and faux BRT express bus lines. But that is a decision that is being made based on cost and not the wants of the community. We'll discuss some of these other issues in the next segments.

Next: Operating Costs

More Fantasy Maps

This time they are in LA, and done by the MTA. Check out some links at Metrorider LA.

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.

Junk in the East Bay

A bad idea. Why? Because if they wanted to make bus service better they should have just done it. There was an article in the Berkeley Daily Planet discussing why it's a bad idea. I've condensed the points below:

1. The EIR even says there will be a low change from automobile drivers to transit riders
2. It provides no energy consumption reduction
3. Will poach riders from BART
4. It keeps advertising BRT as "rail like" even though its not.
5. The EIR doesn't address the impact of 51 buses vs light rail on greenhouse gases

I don't agree with him that parking is such a big deal. It's not free folks. I also think that taking a lane for transit is good. Finally cars will play second best to transit.

This is enough to just be ridiculous. I don't know why folks like the Sierra Club or TALC are supporting this. There is no good reason to other than to give up on your environmental principles for transit mode that is hemorrhaging riders in the third world. Are we serious in this country about carbon? Are we serious about global warming? This is a huge waste of money. This is a reason why the East Bay will always be second rate. They will always play second fiddle to San Francisco. The poor shouldn't be relegated to second rate transit.

If they were smart about it they could do a rapid streetcar with passing lanes at stations that allow 1o minute headways. The streetcars would have their own lanes and attract way more riders and developement. The travel times would be better as well attracting even more riders on a smooth ride.

Misleading Statistics & BRT Promotion

I went to a discussion today about BRT at Oakland City Hall where the former Mayor of Bogota Columbia spoke about his city and what they have done to promote living. He was a wonderful speaker and made a lot of great points about how a street should be safe for children and also how bike lanes should be a place where 8 year olds can ride and not have fears of getting hit by a car. I tend to agree that a white stripe in a road does not denote a bike lane. He didn't talk much about Bogota's famed Transmilenio BRT system and really I'm glad he didn't. BRT is still a bus and Columbia is a completely different country than the United States. I don't think we should be wasting money on a system where we underestimate the costs (replacing buses and pavement more often than projected etc) versus a tried and true system of getting people out of their cars with rail. In an earlier post i noted that the

However I was shocked by the blatant misrepresentations by AC Transit. In a slide show before the event they showed technology costs for Subways, Light Rail and BRT. Not surprisingly LRT was overestimated by a factor of two while BRT was underestimated by a factor of 3. I personally have never heard of a surface LRT system anywhere near the claimed $100 million. In fact, the most recent systems in Minneapolis and Los Angeles were around $60 million but only because of tunneling and viaduct construction. The most recently completed line, Denver's T-Rex was only $37 million a mile. As for BRT, it is completely underestimated. $10 million per mile is what they said but in Los Angeles it was completed for $22 million before extensive repaving because of damage from the buses and I'm not even sure if the right of way acquisition for the line was added into the costs since it was done with the pretense of light rail service eventually. Hartford's busway project is projected to cost $45 million per mile.

So I thought I might make a list of the things that BRT proponents don't tell you about that became apparent when listening to them speak:

1. They claim that its as good as a train but this is only if you add on all of the elements that come with light rail including level boarding, nextbus technology, their own right of ways, external fare recovery systems and signal pre-emption, you might as well build the system everyone wants anyway, not the one they are compromising on because such and such transit agency can't figure out how to make money off of capital investments. I feel no sorrow for agencies that don't get value capture.

2. With light rail projects, the whole street is generally reconstructed making pedestrian space more valuable with new sidewalks and amenities. BRT doesn't do this. In the renderings shown they do but when the project is completed do they do as promised. No. For example on San Pablo it's the same old bus with a red stripe on it. They did nothing to the ped space, didn't mess with the street and yet they still call it Rapid Bus. Clever marketing is bus repackaged transit.

3. They don't tell you that rail infrastructure lasts for over 50 years, perhaps more. Buses last 12 years if that but they don't add in the costs of buying new ones over and over while rail cars are used continuously. They don't tell you that buses are heavier than big rigs sometimes and crush the pavement even worse yet don't include that in costs. Taxpayers have to pay for that but it's a hidden tax that doesn't get reported.

4. They don't tell you that the bus ride is going to be the same jolting start stop bouncing even on the smoothest of roads. The guy reading the paper on the bus won't be able to because of the motion sickness. Anyone who's been on a bus, especially AC Transit 51, knows that you can't keep standing even if you're able bodied. It takes a two hand grip to stay vertical.

5. They also don't tell you that they expect gas prices to remain the same or come up with some whiz bang technology that is going to magically lower gas and diesel prices. I don't care how magically low the sulfer particulate escapage is on the bus, it's still emitting on the street where people are walking, and the internal combustion engine is still slower and less effective than an electric motor. This talk of hybrid's and fuel cells is a joke. Hydrogen of course is only as clean as the energy that is used to create the Hydrogen because it doesn't just grow on trees. Hybrid's are just fuel generators that feel electric engines. However electric overhead wires can be fueled by any number of alternative energy sources. Muni gets 30% of its power from alternative energy making it cleaner than most. Calgary uses 100% wind energy to fuel their light rail. I would be remiss to mention that most LRT lines are fueled by coal power plants but that fact that they can be converted in short order and don't give off local particulates which studies along freeways have shown affect kids the most is most appealing compared to a bus.

6. The people who advocate for BRT are people that generally don't ride the bus. In fact if you ask anyone whether they want to ride a bus or a train guess what the answer would be. Never mind that full BRT costs the same as LRT done right but at times when its more expensive people have been choosing Light Rail. More often than not they are anti transit like RandalL O'Toole or Wendell Cox. Government in bathtub drowning is their goal. But they like rules and regs that benefit them, just not you. The auto lobby in DC loves BRT, they can probably see it as another 20 years of profits and sprawl until people wake up. I get why the Mayor's of Bogota and Curitiba did it and I applaud them because they changed their cities in amazing ways. But why is it that the only thing we learn from them is about a cheap bus?

7. Light Rail operating costs per passenger mile are much less on light rail than on bus. Explained here, enough said.

8. BRT on freeways is just going to allow the cars in at some point. Creating a rail network says no cars ever in this space. In fact, the Harbor Freeway busway was supposed to be bus only, guess what? Now it's an HOV lane.

9. BRT advocates would have you think that low floor = accessible. On the contrary, buses do not pull up flush to the platform like rail does. Try as they might, it doesn't work out they way they promise and it wreaks havoc on accessibility.

10. I will continue this list at some point because i haven't really made half the points i'd like to but the bottom line is this. BRT is just bus repackaged transit pushed by folks that don't really like transit to begin with. They want it to stay for the poor so why not give the poor a third world system. Well we need to step up and invest like China, Japan, and Europe.

Curitiba Transport Chief Throws BRT Under the Bus

Whoa. This article is an amazing expose of Curitiba in the New York Times Magazine that was touched on earlier in the blog. But the best part comes here...

“That competition is very hard,” says Paulo Schmidt, the president of URBS, the rapid-bus system. During peak hours, buses on the main routes are already arriving at almost 30-second intervals; any more buses, and they would back up. While acknowledging his iconoclasm in questioning the sufficiency of Curitiba’s trademark bus network, Schmidt nevertheless says a light-rail system is needed to complement it.

What?!?! Light Rail to compliment the mighty BRT of Curitiba??? This is going to do two things. 1. This will drive folks like Bill Vincent crazy and perhaps they'll start slamming Mr. Schmidt like Bush slams former allies Karl Rove style which will show that they are super fanatics that will do anything to promote the BRT sham. 2. The pro-BRT folks aren't going to like this very much because it shows that even the BRT needs help from rail. For years they have been trying to resist rail in Curitiba believing that it would be a big blow to their efforts to get BRT in the United States. Seems like this might be one of those watershed moments when hopefully we see the beginning of the end of "The bus that looks like a train" argument.

BRT Meets in the Morning

I saw on the SFist that there was a meeting about the Geary BRT. I would have gone however the meeting was in the morning during work. I'm rather annoyed because i would have hoped that I would have been able to make some comments about the need to make it LRT ready and push for the downtown subway segment. But alas I would have had to skip work to make comments. Perhaps they allow emails. Why is it that only certain activists are allowed to attend meetings? Skipping work? Geez.

Did You Know?

Curitiba along with its intense zoning has social service and cultural hubs at its bus transfer stations. The City also has a transfer of development rights program. Read more about this history here. Don't get me started on BRT though...they will be building a metro shortly, apparently with a world bank loan. It should be ready they say by 2009. Translate the article here. Portuguese to English. It's from 2003 and has been around a while, still interesting though even if i can't find any information on it.

Mayor Cassio Taniguchi announced, in the tuesday, that Curitiba will implant a system of light subway in the narrow channels of the axle North-South highway. For the proposal, the passage of the subway will have 19,5 kilometers and will be same praticamento of the current biarticulated buses.

Border Towns Looking at Light Rail

I was interested to see this article this morning discussing a possible light rail line in the Valley. The Valley is what Texans call the Rio Grande Valley just across the border from Mexico. Now I don't doubt that it will turn into a BRT bonanza after the consultants come in due to cost effectiveness criteria, but hopefully that will change.

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.

The Success of the Hiawatha Line Has Consequences

The Space Race is on and in Minneapolis different parts of the region are expecting more now that the Hiawatha line has proved the success of Light Rail. With planning for the Central Corridor underway and funding secured for the North Star Commuter rail, the first parts of the planning process have started for the Southwest Corridor. But the Northwest doesn't really like that and they want to be treated like everyone else. This is why they've forgone the BRT option and begun to study streetcar and light rail. Not only that, a massive streetcar plan is in the works to replace the heaviest bus lines and spur development. This is why I love following the space race. With only one successful line, the region is quickly planning for an upgrade that will match that of the best transit cities. I hope to see this come to fruition.