| BRT being Built on Shaky Ground |
|
|
| Wednesday, 17 October 2007 | |
|
For years, JTA and their consultants have told the general public that their BRT concept is cheaper than all forms of rail. Here's proof, from their own documents, that this is simply not true.
*click on images to enlarge
JTA's own BRT Technology Assessment Report, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, clearly illustrates that there are various forms of rail that are well below the average price of Bus Rapid Transit using dedicated busways.
Busway $26 - $33 million per mile (what JTA proposes for Jacksonville)
Light Rail: $30 - $40 million per mile (for dual track system)
Commuter Rail: $7 - $25 million per mile (for dual track system)
Regio-Sprinter (Diesel Multiple Unit): $5 - $15 million per mile (for dual track system)
*-Self-propelled Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) rail vehicles that can run on existing railroad tracks without electrifying the lines. Examples of this type of system in the United States includes San Diego's Sprinter, Austin's Metrorail, New Jersey's RiverLINE and Orlando's proposed commuter rail system on the CSX "A" line. Also take note that rail systems don't necessarily have to be double tracked, thus dropping the cost estimated by JTA's Technology Assessment Report.
Rail is Cheaper! JTA's reports say so! Unless JTA does not believe their own consultant's studies, both Commuter rail and the Regio-Sprinter cost as much as $21 million LESS per mile then the average dedicated busway BRT system (like the one proposed for Jacksonville). Furthermore, unlike BRT, you don't necessarily have to build a double tracked system to get a starter line up and running. We already have existing lines and we already own the S-Line. You also aren't forced to build elaborate one to five acre stations that take the place of existing office buildings and residences, as JTA plans to do. This is why cities with progressive transportation authorities like Austin, Nashville and Albuquerque have recently constructed rail systems for less than $3.5 million per mile.
What's the difference between buses and rail vehicles? Here's (above) what JTA's Technology Assessment Report has to say.
Despite JTA's claims, we aren't pulling these numbers out of thin air. JTA's own studies back us up as well. With this in mind, what logical entity would continue to ignore the potential cost savings of using existing rail to push for an unproven mass transit system that will cost taxpayers five times as much? For a copy of the full Technology Assessment Report, so you can see for your own eyes, email your request to: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it |
October 17, 2007, 8:30 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
So when JTA representatives repeatedly state that they chose BRT simply because it was cheaper, where did they get their numbers? Obviously they didn't even look at their own study. This just gets better and better.
October 17, 2007, 8:35 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
Also notice that the cost per passenger mile for commuter rail is about half of BRT.
October 17, 2007, 8:47 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
Also, the light rail system won't be spitting tons of noxious gases onto pedestrians along Forsyth and Adams St. thus ruining our just-burgeoning retail core. I say again, connect our existing light rail lines with the "L", stem it all from the existing bus/"L" hub on State Street and voila! instant success, the Mayor and the city council can pat himself on the back all he wants for doing something that actually serves the public efficiently, cheaply and ecologically.
October 17, 2007, 9:07 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
was this at the brt meeting?
i'm assuming when they claim it's cheaper than rail, they're referring to light rail. why would light rail be more expensive than heavy rail? is it assuming that it has to be electrified?
October 17, 2007, 9:21 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
the city's short-sightedness on this issue is becoming more and more infuriating everyday.
October 17, 2007, 9:21 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
was this at the brt meeting?
i'm assuming when they claim it's cheaper than rail, they're referring to light rail. why would light rail be more expensive than heavy rail? is it assuming that it has to be electrified?
Light rail is cheaper than Heavy Rail. They have Heavy Rail (ex. Atlanta's MARTA, Miami's Metrorail, etc.) priced at $95 to $145 million per mile.
Of course this information is not available at the public hearings. Instead, there's a handout to tell you why BRT is the greatest thing to hit Jax since the invention of street lights. The handout also compares Las Vegas' Max (a BRT project running in mixed traffic on existing streets) with underground light rail (Hiawatha line-Minneapolis) and subways (DC's Metrorail and LA's Red line). For some strange reason there's no mention of the Silver Line's (BRT Boston) tunnels as a part of the $14.6 billion dollar BIG DIG or Pittsburgh's West Busway, which cost that community a whopping $55 million per mile a few years back.
Also, there's no mention of ANY of the cheaper rail systems that have recently been developed (ex. Nashville's Music City Star, San Diego's Sprinter, Austin's Metrorail, etc.). Those who don't know much about transit can easily be tricked.
October 17, 2007, 9:23 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
What's going to happen as oil prices continue to climb? Has anyone factored that into the equation?
October 17, 2007, 10:16 am
The Savings of LRT!
Edson Tennyson PE, writes that Denver's C and D LRT lines, Portland's MAX LRT to the PDX Airport, Salt Lake City's Trax LRT to Sandy, and St. Louis the MetroLink LRT extension from East St.Louis to Scott Air Force Base – a total of about 45 miles of LRT in all – cost approximately $23 million a mile "including cars and some shops". Phoenix's new LRT, presently under construction almost entirely in the street, "is costing more than twice that with five years of inflation (15% total) and much street reconfiguration." Ed assigns LRT a rate of 3.0 percent depreciation, "so the annual cost of $23 million is $700,000."
In contrast, Ed points out, Pittsburgh's West Busway, built at generally the same time as the above LRT lines, cost approximately $50 millon per mile without the cost of buses included – although it had a tunnel rehab involved. However, the busway also benefited from a pre-graded right-of-way from a former railroad. No buses or garages were included in the cost.
The Harbor Freeway Transitway (busway) in Los Angeles also cost approximately $50 million per mile, with less pavement cost for HOV construction but higher station costs in the freeway. Ed figures that, with shorter bus and pavement life, the depreciation rate is 5% – so the annual cost, with the cost of buses included, is $3.5 million per mile ... "far in excess of LRT cost. " In fact, Ed emphasizes, "Five times as much."
While LA's "Orange Line" busway cost only about $14 million per mile, plus the cost of buses and their facilities, Ed contends that "that low cost is not honest." He points out that the right-of-way was previously acquired for LRT (but political problems stemming from local community opposition resulted in legislation prohibiting the installation of a surface LRT line in the corridor).
Ed adds 25 percent to the project cost for the right-of-way, and adds in the cost of the buses, bringing the annual depreciation to about $1.4 million per mile, "double LRT cost." Then, Ed notes, annual operating cost must be considered.
LRT averages $180 per car hour for a peak load of 125 passengers, equal to $1.44 per passenger or 36 cents per passenger-mile (assuming average trip length of 4 miles). In contrast, Ed notes, buses cost about $100 per hour in larger cities, with 58 peak passengers at the same square-foot occupancy as LRT, so the cost is $1.72 per passenger and 43 cents per passenger-mile (again, assuming 4 miles)
Unfortunately, Ed points out, "There is no real world operating data on a Busway. It is buried in system averages. If we use such averages, buses cost 80 cents per passenger-mile. Hopeless."
Ocklawaha
October 17, 2007, 11:29 am
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
given JTA track record of missing the ball 100% of the time brt is cheaper as we won't have to remove tracks when "we" realize "we" goofed up again.
October 17, 2007, 12:27 pm
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
was this at the brt meeting?
i'm assuming when they claim it's cheaper than rail, they're referring to light rail. why would light rail be more expensive than heavy rail? is it assuming that it has to be electrified?
Light rail is cheaper than Heavy Rail. They have Heavy Rail (ex. Atlanta's MARTA, Miami's Metrorail, etc.) priced at $95 to $145 million per mile.
my mistake, i read commuter rail as heavy rail.
October 17, 2007, 1:56 pm
Re: BRT being Built on Shaky Ground
Here's an interesting tidbit:
The Colorado Railcar DMU was never considered as a part of this technology assessment study, back in 2001. Also, the city owned S-Line abandoned rail corridor was not mentioned as well, resulting in the concept of commuter rail being eliminated early because consultants said there was no existing rail in the Northside that served major destinations in that area.
interior view of a Colorado Railcar DMU
exterior of a self propelled double decker DMU
Considering there were obvious facts missed in the original technology selection process and its going on six years since this study was done, this whole thing should be reconsidered/updated instead of JTA continuing to light our tax dollars on fire.
What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
- Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
- Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
- Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
>> Register now <<