Washington DC - The Cox News Service reports on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) advocates attempts to break through the pro-rail lobby and get noticed.
It won't be easy to do given the government's support of Light Rail Transit systems in the tune of $18.2 billion dollars for FY-2008. By comparison, the Feds are only planning on spending $1.4 billion during the same time period on BRT.
Construction and engineering firms are pushing hard to keep rail projects at the head of the line simply because they stand to make much more money off of a government contract for rail than they would for a BRT line. These firms, added with the various pro-rail advocacy groups have formed a very strong alliance which literally stifles BRT proponents.
Successful BRT operations are often overlooked and even ridiculed by the pro-rail lobby in the attempt to ram rail through. Thee pro-rail lobby also take rider complaints on BRT operations and literally blow them out of proportion while burying the exact same rider complaints on rail operations as though the complaints were without merit.
I have long advocated for a two-tier method for rail lines due to so many cities that can't even run a bus system trying to hop on the rail bandwagon. This two-tiered method would require cities that insist on having rail to build a BRT line first to justify if a much more expensive rail line is warranted. If the BRT is successful after 10 years, the line could be easily converted to rail use. If not successful, billions of tax dollars could be saved.
The right of way for rail would be secure and much of the development costs would already be done through the BRT project although the transit loving environmentalists have succeeded in getting things changed already so that much of the work would have to be repeated to help drive up the cost.
Pro-rail advocates I know hate my plan. Why? Because they are afraid that the BRT line wouldn't generate the ridership required to convert the line to rail. They are well aware that the vast majority of new rail lines being planned aren't being designed for transportation but strictly for development purposes and therein lies the rub.
The vast majority of rail startups aren't designed for transportation and if the route being used for development has to prove itself before being converted to rail, the number of rail startups would drop dramatically. The pro-rail crowd can't have that.
The Orange Line in Los Angeles, the EmX line in Eugene and don't forget Pittsburgh's 3 busways are among the BRT successes in the United States. In Pittsburgh, even with the Port Authority's ability to mess up a one car funeral, they haven't been able to royally screw up the BRT operation on the busways (yet).
The article also mentions one of the pro-rail crowd's favorite arguments about the safety of LRT over BRT. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. I can easily shut that argument down by saying one word, Houston. Houston Metro was trying for the record of the most unsafe rail operation in the world with several accidents each month for several years after it opened.
BRT is also much more flexible than rail operations. Buses can get around problems on the line while LRV's and streetcars must sit and wait, disrupting the entire operation. I rarely see in the news a story regarding major delays along a BRT line yet daily there are articles regarding major delays on rail lines due to power outages, derailments, maintenance, etc.
The bottom line in all of this is that transportation is taking a bigger and bigger chunk of tax dollars to build, run and maintain each year. While rapid transit is important, it needs to be done with cost in mind. The build it and they will come philosophy of rail advocates just doesn't cut it, especially when most new rail lines are being built strictly for development and/or political legacy purposes. Rail needs to be built where it will work for transportation and unless a rail proposal is forced to prove itself, rail will ultimately price public transit out of existence.
It won't be easy to do given the government's support of Light Rail Transit systems in the tune of $18.2 billion dollars for FY-2008. By comparison, the Feds are only planning on spending $1.4 billion during the same time period on BRT.
Construction and engineering firms are pushing hard to keep rail projects at the head of the line simply because they stand to make much more money off of a government contract for rail than they would for a BRT line. These firms, added with the various pro-rail advocacy groups have formed a very strong alliance which literally stifles BRT proponents.
Successful BRT operations are often overlooked and even ridiculed by the pro-rail lobby in the attempt to ram rail through. Thee pro-rail lobby also take rider complaints on BRT operations and literally blow them out of proportion while burying the exact same rider complaints on rail operations as though the complaints were without merit.
I have long advocated for a two-tier method for rail lines due to so many cities that can't even run a bus system trying to hop on the rail bandwagon. This two-tiered method would require cities that insist on having rail to build a BRT line first to justify if a much more expensive rail line is warranted. If the BRT is successful after 10 years, the line could be easily converted to rail use. If not successful, billions of tax dollars could be saved.
The right of way for rail would be secure and much of the development costs would already be done through the BRT project although the transit loving environmentalists have succeeded in getting things changed already so that much of the work would have to be repeated to help drive up the cost.
Pro-rail advocates I know hate my plan. Why? Because they are afraid that the BRT line wouldn't generate the ridership required to convert the line to rail. They are well aware that the vast majority of new rail lines being planned aren't being designed for transportation but strictly for development purposes and therein lies the rub.
The vast majority of rail startups aren't designed for transportation and if the route being used for development has to prove itself before being converted to rail, the number of rail startups would drop dramatically. The pro-rail crowd can't have that.
The Orange Line in Los Angeles, the EmX line in Eugene and don't forget Pittsburgh's 3 busways are among the BRT successes in the United States. In Pittsburgh, even with the Port Authority's ability to mess up a one car funeral, they haven't been able to royally screw up the BRT operation on the busways (yet).
The article also mentions one of the pro-rail crowd's favorite arguments about the safety of LRT over BRT. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. I can easily shut that argument down by saying one word, Houston. Houston Metro was trying for the record of the most unsafe rail operation in the world with several accidents each month for several years after it opened.
BRT is also much more flexible than rail operations. Buses can get around problems on the line while LRV's and streetcars must sit and wait, disrupting the entire operation. I rarely see in the news a story regarding major delays along a BRT line yet daily there are articles regarding major delays on rail lines due to power outages, derailments, maintenance, etc.
The bottom line in all of this is that transportation is taking a bigger and bigger chunk of tax dollars to build, run and maintain each year. While rapid transit is important, it needs to be done with cost in mind. The build it and they will come philosophy of rail advocates just doesn't cut it, especially when most new rail lines are being built strictly for development and/or political legacy purposes. Rail needs to be built where it will work for transportation and unless a rail proposal is forced to prove itself, rail will ultimately price public transit out of existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment