Print Article
Getting any more bus service in whatever form would be an improvement. Buses can be very inviting to the stressed out white or blue collar workers. Often stopping near their homes and dropping them at the door of their offices or factories. For the bus to accomplish this it might make several dozen stops along the way, slowly filling or discharging capacity as it moves along the street. Rail in any form just can't do that as well, and we should not force it to be something it is not.
Boston's Silver Line
The argument that buses in the BRT form are cheaper than rail, or "just like rail only cheaper" is misleading. The fact is cities never seem to get the cheap BRT promised without compromising the components of various systems, which then become just another bus.
Buses are well suited for local and community based transit, rail is better suited to higher speeds, capacity and stage lengths. The most common anti-rail argument is that with BRT, buses to do the same thing as rail for less money. At the heart of that argument is that no one has ever seen BRT do what rail does. In reality, we have seen that it has failed to do what rail does in Los Angeles' Orange Line and Boston's Silver Line.
Pittsburgh, with some of the earliest and most extensive BRT in the United States, has watched the ridership free fall on the West Line for a number of years. JTA’s own cost estimates also suggest that the proposed BRT system will cost more than commuter rail and streetcars and will be at least equal to new light rail. The capital costs of recently completed BRT systems in Boston and Cleveland prove they cost as much as rail, yet do not achieve the same benefits that rail brings to the table. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we want to see BRT fail locally.
The Los Angeles Orange Line is a two-lane, 14 mile dedicated busway that was completed in 2005 at the cost of $350 million or $25 million per mile.
A Federal Trap
Salt Lake City's 44 mile Front Runner commuter rail system was constructed for 1/2 the price ($13.9 million per mile) of recent dedicated busway systems. Considering JTA's rapid transit corridors parallel rail lines, is it possible to substitute portions of the BRT plan for more affordable and attractive rail options?
JTA is stuck with a BRT plan that is already in the Federal New Starts pipeline. The Billion dollar question shouldn't be do we want or need BRT; rather would the Federal Transit Administration allow us to alter the routes or type of mass transit technology after the corridors have already been identified?
Could we simply reroute or curtail some of the plans? This might be possible in cases where we have BRT and commuter rail, Skyway or streetcar identified for the same spot.
For example, rather then building BRT along the railroad from Union Terminal to Park Street, and hence via Blanding to Orange Park. Would it not be better to serve Park Street with a multi-modal station where BRT and rail exchange passengers? Or would it make financial sense to eliminate the entire proposed BRT line paralleling the CSX “A” to Clay County?
A New BRT Line For Cleveland
Cleveland's 7.1 mile Euclid Corridor BRT was completed in 2008 at the cost of $188.4 million or $26.5 million per mile.
Cleveland's new Euclid Corridor BRT has just opened. Like Jacksonville, they used numbers from US Light Rail in subways and compared those numbers to places like Curitiba, Brazil or Bogota, Colombia. True to form, with echoes of our Skyway, Cleveland claimed close to 50,000 daily riders, then 39,000, then 15,000. In reality, they might reach the 15,000 figure due to rebuilding a busy downtown street. However, it has opened 10 years after the studies were done, and while projected at $21 Million per mile it ended up being $26.5 Million per mile (which is what our total Skyway expense would be if we added just 8.5 miles to the system). Isn't BRT supposed to be quicker and cheaper?
The Federal Trap is that if the Euclid Line was to enter study today, under Ma Peters - it only scored a "medium" and would not be funded at all today. So is JTA running headlong toward an uncertain future because the Federal Government won't allow the flexibility to fix the BRT if the various rail studies come in as more cost effective. It's already in the pipeline; pull the plug now, try to restart and the FTA would just slam the door. We thought the reason for BRT projects was because they are more flexible and cost effective. Basically, what this proves is that the FTA doesn't want to spend money on projects that give transit its own Right-Of-Way. No, not painting lanes on the street, but a true separation from other traffic that makes it more effective. Today, it’s required to get a medium in Cost Effectiveness.
There are currently 85 projects in some phase of the FTA process from 2005 when the medium cost effectiveness was enforced. Today, not including small starts, that number dropped to 31 projects. Lest you think that projects are rightly being cut, it should be noted that Denver's Southeast Corridor, Charlotte's South Corridor, the Los Angeles Orange Line, and the Minneapolis Hiawatha Line all had a Medium Low ratings. Those projects have all passed their projections yet would not have been funded under the current process. We can only wish Cleveland the best with their new BRT system, but it's an improvement in the corridor, one that the FTA would not approve of these days.
The BRT subject in Cleveland during the planning and building of the Euclid Corridor (EC) BRT line, rightly or wrongly, has been fairly controversial with locals. According to Plain Dealer newspaper articles, some of the criticism comes from a misunderstanding of who funded the project and where the money came from. Other criticism comes from the idea that building the EC meant Cleveland squandered resources that could have been used for a better transit project.
It is true that EC replaced an existing bus line on Euclid Ave. It is also true that the old bus line was horribly crowded, slow, and inefficient. A primary selling point of the EC was that it connects the city's two biggest employment centers: downtown and University Circle. Of course, they already have the Red Line (heavy rail) that connects those two neighborhoods (although the stations could be relocated to better serve that end; and one of them is currently planned to be rebuilt).
The Euclid Corridor BRT parallels the Red Line, which is a heavy rail system. With this duplicate route, Cleveland missed an opportunity to complement the Red Line by improving mass transit connectivity into suburbs like Cleveland Heights.
The alignment of the BRT line is one of the biggest disappointments. The alignment that was built continues down Euclid Ave. into East Cleveland, which few locals will argue is the city's roughest, most rundown and unsalvageable parts of the area. It is also an area that is already served by the Red Line. Not unlike Jacksonville's BRT routes that run under the Skyway or alongside railroad tracks. It would have been exciting to see an alignment that turned south and east at University Circle and provided transit service to neighborhoods like Cleveland Heights and University Heights.
It would have also certainly been more exciting to have a new electric rail line (whether light or heavy) down Euclid Ave. and into neighborhoods that currently lack good transit service to University Circle and downtown. Ridership expectations may not necessarily be high, as the Plain Dealer claims, but the stakes certainly are high. Critics are ready to pounce on the project and officially label it as a failure and waste of valuable resources.
Is BRT a Stepping Stone to Rail?
Ottawa's Transitway was originally billed as a BRT system that could be converted into light rail, at some distant point in the future. However a February 2003 Rapid Transit Expansion Study suggests this would be difficult because it would result in service disruption and an additional billion dollars in capital costs. Why repeat Ottawa's mistake when we already know better?
Cleveland’s Mr. Calabrese is the push behind the Euclid BRT, he parrots the standard line on BRT just being a stepping stone to rail. "Bus rapid transit lines can be designated and more buses can be tacked on if the service starts to grow. If the volume grows to a point, then some of these vehicles can be linked together. And then tracks can be laid".
Suddenly a bus system has become a full fledged light rail system. If the volume grows some of "THESE VEHICLES" can be linked together? Buses? Really? Where has this happened? Where have they just slipped rails under the bus and got instant light rail? Can you image this happening on the Arlington Expressway or I-95 North BRT alignments? The fact is BRT proponents are being dishonest with the public. They know the only thing even close to this is a highly experimental "Bus Train" following a virtual test track or when the City of Curitiba, Brazil, BRT system failed to meet demand (after being the model for both Cleveland and Jacksonville) forcing the City of Curitiba to build a new Metro Rail System.
Vintage Streetcars, Commuter Rail, Modern Streetcars, Light Rail and Skyways are not cheap, but they are cheaper than the BRT alternative as proposed and typical highway construction. For example, the Outer Beltway is expected to cost $1.8 billion with the Federal contribution being $69.2 Million. The new interchange at I-10 and I-95 is another $148 Million. Furthermore, a 2-mile I-275 project in Tampa is estimated to cost another $500 million.
Tampa's Airport Interchanges (SR 60) project: This 3 mile/$212 million ($70.67 million per mile) project is a prime example of our expensive investments in road construction.
Each of these projects cost considerably more money per mile than rail and none can move as many people as rail could at capacity. Rail is cheaper to operate per passenger miles than buses, which is why you want riders going long distances to do so on rail. Exclusive lane BRT in Jacksonville is not going to work if the current routes pass review. Even if BRT bus lanes succeed in moving the buses to a ramp, congestion and fuel will continue to eat into bus funding, making buses ever more expensive to operate per passenger mile. This is why buses are better suited for local access and rail is better suited for longer distances.
Investment in streetcars and commuter rail will pay off spectacularly because we’ll be able to put buses that are used for long-haul service back to where they are effective, into shorter local service. Once riders get on rail, they become much cheaper per over the distance, thus we save money and can improve service elsewhere. Rail isn’t cheap if you have no buses, and buses aren’t cheap if they are asked to do what rail should be doing.
The ability to attract transit oriented development and raise adjacent property values are two areas where rail consistently beats Bus Rapid Transit. As we plan for our future, mass transit planning should be a visionary element in those efforts, as opposed to being a reactionary solution to congestion.
The only people that would be happy that commuter rail, streetcar and Skyway expansion projects won’t happen are the anti-everything set, who claim to be in support of our current BRT plans, but, are in truth anti-change. They can continue to compare high dollar subways to BRT systems in far away places like Lima, Peru and Bogotá, Colombia. They know full well that BRT can’t do what rail can, and in watching our own JTA BRT project crash and burn, they remain against any form of transit mix that actually works. Meanwhile, unable to maneuver, JTA becomes a more visible failure and contrary to popular belief, no one at Metro Jacksonville or Jacksonville Transit Blog will be cheering.
Guest article by Bob Mann; Photo text by Ennis Davis
http://jacksonvilletransit.blogspot.com/
Special Thanks:
Jacksonville Transit Blog
The Overhead Wire
City of Cleveland
Cleveland Plain Dealer
JTA
Mr. Michael Blaylock
Mr. Mike Miller
Mr. Rob Pitingolo
The Toledo Blade
APTA
Seattle Transit Blog
Light Rail Now
FTA
Share this article
RSS
jeh1980
October 31, 2008, 05:49:58 AMWait a minute!
thelakelander
October 31, 2008, 08:38:39 AMI like wearing shorts in the summer, but I would not wear them to church for a Sunday service. However, this does not mean I hate shorts.
We never hated the concept of bus rapid transit. It just does not make sense the way JTA has proposed it. Why pay double for an inferior service to parallel rail, if rail is cheaper? Instead use the modes to complement each other. We can do this by rail becoming the regional mass transit trunk line and having BRT corridors set up to feed riders in from area that aren't rail accessible. For example, instead of BRT running down Philips, run a passenger rail line down that corridor. Then use some form of BRT to run along corridors like JTB to connect that rail spine directly with destination points like Southpoint, Deerwood Park, SJTC, UNF and the beaches.
Abhishek
October 31, 2008, 08:42:26 AMThis is a good post, especially the last part about the people who defend BRT. We wont get anywhere with such mentalities.
Thanks for taking a stand, MetroJax.
Clem1029
October 31, 2008, 10:46:58 AMAs a Cleveland native, I was surprised to see the Euclid Corridor project mentioned here, although it does make for a good comparison. I want to provide a little context to the EC route to give everyone and idea of exactly what is along that orange line, if nothing else than to compare that line with some of what JTA and MetroJax are proposing.
Looking at Euclid Ave downtown from it's start at Public Square to about where it crosses I-90, the following are either right on the street, or a 5 minute walk:
Tower City Center (this is basically the hub of downtown - it's a mall, has 2 high end historical hotels (Ritz & Renaissance), all of the public transit rail lines come through here, including the local downtown Waterfront line connecting to the Flats, Browns Stadium, and the Rock Hall and Science Center, with walkways connecting it to Gateway (Progressive Field and Quicken Loans Arena, direct connection to one of the two outdoor concert venues downtonw) and the new courthouse). If you're taking public transit into downtown Cleveland, Tower City is a very likely destination.
BP Building, Fifth Third Building, Key Center, etc etc - basically 90% of all the downtown Cleveland office space is within a 5-10 min walk of Euclid.
East 4th Street - a newer (last 5 or so years) entertainment district including House of Blues, an unbelievably good restaurant/comedy club/martini bar, a higher end bowling alley, and a bunch of other restaurants.
Playhouse Square - Cleveland theater district, has 4 or 5 historical theaters that see a lot of national shows come through. It's one of the biggest theater districts outside of the New Yorks and Torontos.
Cleveland State University - Cleveland's public downtown university.
You basically have all of that along the first 2 miles of Euclid Ave. However, once you get past CSU, things get a little hairy. The comment from the article that "...East Cleveland, which few locals will argue is the city's roughest, most rundown and unsalvageable parts of the area" is an absolute truth. Most people (and particularly westsiders like myself) don't hit East Cleveland unless is absolutely critical. It's a pretty depressing drive. I understand the argument that the Euclid Corridor project might improve the area, but I don't buy it. I'll address that more towards the end.
With all of that said however, there IS a good reason to make that drive from time to time. You see that little jog to the northeast about midway through the route? That's the Cleveland Clinic - widely regarded as one of the best medical centers in the world. The drive to the Clinic is astounding - you get outside of downtown and it's the most economically depressed urban drive you've ever been on, then BAM - here's this world class medical center. The Clinic campus is huge, and there's an Omni Intercontinental hotel there as well. Again, definitely a viable destination for a transit project.
From there to the northeast, you get a somewhat improving view. Where Mayfield Road intersects the corridor you've got small cultural pocket areas like Coventry and Little Italy. You also have two more universities - Case Western Reserve University (it might just go by Case now...most locals (and former locals) like myself still refer to it as Case Western) and John Carroll University, both of which are well regarded schools (Case especially is an outstanding engineering university). If my memory is not failing me, along that route you've also got the hall that's the home of the Cleveland Orchestra, as well as the museum district.
So yeah...there's a LOT going down along the Euclid corridor, even considering the issues from downtown to the Clinic. Even from my limited descriptions, it's obvious it's a corridor that could desperately use some sort of transit system.
Here's my problem with the Euclid Corridor project - outside of the major players (most of which I listed above), the project OBLITERATED local businesses. Let's be honest - stuff like Cleveland State or Tower City aren't going to go anywhere. But the construction for the project was an absolute disaster. When I visited a year ago, the construction was horrendous, traffic routing was miserable, and it was obvious that it was keeping people from coming downtown, and the result was not only destroying local stores because of the lack of traffic, but even small business relocated from downtown to the inner ring suburbs (Lakewood being a big location - they were one of a few inner ring suburbs that put a ton of incentives out for small business to relocate there). The big boys stayed, but when you've got an economically depressed city as it is (and Cleveland is hurting big time), overspending on a project that might provide a boost down the line, but during the project drives people and business out of the city anyways is NOT a good use of funding. And when you blow up the small business portion of the route for the corridor downtown, explain to me how exactly the project is supposed to revitalize the East Cleveland area between Cleveland State and the Clinic?
Don't get me wrong - there's still an outside chance this project could work out. Let's be honest here (and this isn't meant to be an insult around here, just stating it as I see it) - downtown Cleveland, far and away, has more to attract people to come in and enjoy than Downtown Jacksonville. I'm not saying Jax couldn't get there eventually, but looking at right now, Downtown Cleveland wins. So there's always going to be a draw for people to come in...as such, they might utilize the EC project more, and you might see the EC redevelop into something big. More likely, ridership is going to stay way low, they'll have spent way too much on the system, and the business that left won't be coming back.
So let's bring this back to the JTA BRT discussion. I understand the idea is going to be a bit larger than just the EC project, so a direct comparison will be tough as I don't think Jax has a one shot corridor like Euclid that has so much along it, which is good and bad. The EC project could get pushed because the old bus route along Euclid was one of the most popular in the city. Are JTA's proposed BRT lines along the most traveled routes in the city, or are we in a Field of Dreams "if you build it they will ride" mentality here? If it is along a highly traveled route, how do they plan to deal with the inevitable business impact that construction for a massive BRT system will entail? And if it's the Field of Dreams scenario, help out a newbie - where has extending a BRT system where there's no popular bus route drastically increased ridership to justify the expense?
I've totally bought into the rail + Skyway + BRT/Streetcar feeder concept around here. I think the Euclid Corridor project could have greatly benefited from that approach. For JTA though, I think this all boils down to a simple question -
How do you prevent causing even MORE sprawl during the years it will take to construct the BRT system?
Jason
October 31, 2008, 10:58:50 AMGreat article.
Jeh1980, as Lake said, the stance of MetroJacksonville has never been against BRT as a whole, just against the way it is being suggested here in Jacksonville.
Beach, Atlantic, Southside, Normandy, 103rd, and parts of Blanding are all great corridors to implement BRT. They are not very dense but serve large populations. These routes could connect directly to the intersecting rail lines.
Ocklawaha
October 31, 2008, 11:44:32 AMNO! NO! NO! Please understand, as the Jacksonville Transit Blogger, and I think I can speak for MJ folks on this:
1. We hate waste
2. We hate the idea of building two parallel systems for the same passenger.
3. We hate the idea of making a bus a train, and a train a bus - WON'T WORK.
We LOVE Transit MIX. The more the better. Layers of transit running at different angles - one from another.
In short a matrix.
We LOVE the idea of a SE, SW, N, and E, corridor, but we already have rail on all but the East line, so why waste? Why reinvent the wheel?
The North line has taken shots from us because at its worst, it doesn't go where people live-work-play. At best it is an express line down I-95, that connects Gateway Mall and Downtown. I believe you will see a change to a surface street - one that can tie into rail somewhere on North Main or perhaps Shands. If you do, I know Jacksonville Transit Blog will be onboard for the ride.
The Southwest line has taken hits because at its worst, it's just a duplication of a railroad mainline (50-79 MPH) that we already have. At its best, it serves BLANDING, so run it from the railroad down Blanding and watch us support it.
The Southeast Line, is under fire because at its worst, it's under the Skyway through San Marco (rendering it useless) and also just a duplication of a railroad just 1 city block away. At it's best, it's an area where we could test the FTA feelings on moving the whole corridor to JTB. This is something that was in the long range plan anyway. So let's run it from the railhead at JTB all the way to the beaches. I'm waiting for the bus at JTB and HODGES!
The East Line, has been tormented because at it's worst, it's an elevated freeway for buses over the Arlington Expressway, yet its sorely needed. At best, it would use HOV and Service Roads, and perhaps blow through from Atlantic Beach to the industrial area of Westlake. It is both the most wanted BRT route and the most wanted LRT route. Depending on the decision on the Matthews bridge, it could be either in the future. But for now we can test the waters with a lower dollar Light-BRT route, then decide where we want to spend a half Billion.
So what do we do with all the new buses with less immediate BRT? We redeploy them to close the headways on the routes we already have from every 30 and 45 minutes to 15 minutes. We add community based transit*, we shoot for the stars with a fully blended transit mix. BRT - BUS - RAIL - STREETCAR - SKYWAY.
*Community Based Transit: Call it transit around your zip code, centered on things such as River City Marketplace, Gateway Mall, Town Center, Avenues, Regency, Beaches etc... Also the "community" part also speaks to blend. For example the Skyway would look great going to the FEC at Atlantic for a rail-bus-skyway interchange station. But it would NOT FIT - Springfield, Avondale, San Marco, Ortega etc. And those communities would look great with vintage streetcars - which is why its now also in the mix.
Give me BRT to Hodges and JTB, Rail downtown, and BRT up a surface street to Shands/VA center, and EVERY TRIP I MAKE will be on JTA. Count me in.
ProjectMaximus
October 31, 2008, 01:57:30 PMI read the transit blog regularly, so, lol, it disapoints me whenever I see a new article and then it's just a repeat from the other site.
Nevertheless, good argument...let's see some BRT ways (especially out to Arlington and the Beaches) feeding into the three main commuter rail lines!
Driven1
November 02, 2008, 05:06:42 PMgood update ock & lake.