Bus rapid transit system could boost metro Detroit, experts say

[Dexlin]

You're preaching to the choir, man. None of their excuses made sense. As you pointed out, the capital costs weren't really the issue because the feds would have paid for much of it, and the line had something else that most proposals around the country never had, and that's tens-of-millions of dollars in private funds. The operational costs excuse doesn't make much sense, because as you also pointed out, it's cheaper in the long-run to run LRT cars, especially the longer you extend the line, which is why they wanted to build the entire thing at once up to 8 Mile. What this was was a short-sighted decisions by so-called money men that think they know best, but who have absolutely no idea about mass transit. Penny wise and pound foolish, just like they've always been.

Snyder doesn't believe in investing in anything other that corporate tax cuts, and Bing wouldn't know how to run a bus if one ran over him.

[corktownyuppie]

You're preaching to the choir, man. None of their excuses made sense. As you pointed out, the capital costs weren't really the issue because the feds would have paid for much of it, and the line had something else that most proposals around the country never had, and that's tens-of-millions of dollars in private funds. The operational costs excuse doesn't make much sense, because as you also pointed out, it's cheaper in the long-run to run LRT cars, especially the longer you extend the line, which is why they wanted to build the entire thing at once up to 8 Mile. What this was was a short-sighted decisions by so-called money men that think they know best, but who have absolutely no idea about mass transit. Penny wise and pound foolish, just like they've always been.

Snyder doesn't believe in investing in anything other that corporate tax cuts, and Bing wouldn't know how to run a bus if one ran over him.

I totally agree that it's cheaper in the long-run to run LRT cars, for sure. Te problem is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. With the LRT plan [[one which I'd personally prefer), the operating costs would come from only one source...Detroiters. With the BRT plan, the operating costs get spread over the entire region.

Why don't we just do LRT across the entire region? Well, because now the capital costs are way over the budget.

Why doesn't the region chip in and pay the upfront capital costs since it's cheaper in the long run? Because 99% of the region never uses transit and aren't politically motivated to spend even the money on operating costs, let alone the higher price tag for the capital expenses.

Well does that make them short-sighted, penny-wise, and pound-foolish? Yes, of course it does. But they're not the ones suffering from a dearth of transit options. They're fine with the world just the way it is, thank you very much. Is it fair that they have all the money and they don't care? It doesn't matter whether or not it's fair. They have the money, and right or wrong, their lives won't be positively affected in any tangible way in the short- to intermediate-term by transit.

Well doesn't transit eventually benefit us all in the long-term? Well I believe it does. But convincing people to make large, short-term investments in exchange for a long-term benefit takes major salesmanship and high degrees of trust. [[Imagine a moment, being one of the first people to buy life insurance: "So wait, you want me to pay you $1,000 a year...so that one day, when I die, and I'm not here to verify it, and it might be 20 years from now...you'll write a check for $100,000 to my children?" Think about how much trust that requires. Or another example, think about how difficult it is to convince troubled high school student that a high school diploma and college degree will be worth foregoing an opportunity right now to make tons of money selling drugs. It's the same challenge.) And right now -- and for very good reason, suburban residents don't have a lot of trust in Detroit residents or their leadership.

So this is the political puzzle. And in my opinion, any solution which brings all parties to the table to begin working together and building trust with some emphasis on tangible, short-term results...is crucial, even if it means the investment is short-sighted. Once you have the roots of trust and partnership, it'll be much easier to change the BRT lines to LRT lines...and then we can use the existing buses to expand the system with new routes.

Nothing happens until we convince the people who control the money to spend it. And if that means that\ they get to make decisions we don't agree with...then -- to some extent -- we should be willing to take it if brings all the players together to get this off the ground.

[ghettopalmetto]

I totally agree that it's cheaper in the long-run to run LRT cars, for sure. Te problem is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. With the LRT plan [[one which I'd personally prefer), the operating costs would come from only one source...Detroiters. With the BRT plan, the operating costs get spread over the entire region.

Any reason why light rail couldn't be implemented under the auspices of say, a Regional Transit Authority? An RTA might even be able to *gasp* develop a long-term transit implementation plan that includes improvements in the suburban counties as well. Hell, if Virginia, Maryland, DC, and the federal government can make such an idea work across state lines....

Oh wait--that would just be a suburban power grab intended to disenfranchise Detroiters. Because we all know that the suburbanites want nothing more than to own DDOT's world-class bus system.

[corktownyuppie]

Any reason why light rail couldn't be implemented under the auspices of say, a Regional Transit Authority? An RTA might even be able to *gasp* develop a long-term transit implementation plan that includes improvements in the suburban counties as well. Hell, if Virginia, Maryland, DC, and the federal government can make such an idea work across state lines....

Oh wait--that would just be a suburban power grab intended to disenfranchise Detroiters. Because we all know that the suburbanites want nothing more than to own DDOT's world-class bus system.

My expertise on this is limited, so I invite anyone to correct me if I'm wrong. I think the problem with LRT from the perspective of an RTA is that the upfront capital cost would be enormous. Far, far more than anything that we're getting from the feds. And given that the suburbs are already reluctant to subsidize operating costs with a regional tax, I don't think the political will exists to write the big check up front.

[ghettopalmetto]

My expertise on this is limited, so I invite anyone to correct me if I'm wrong. I think the problem with LRT from the perspective of an RTA is that the upfront capital cost would be enormous. Far, far more than anything that we're getting from the feds. And given that the suburbs are already reluctant to subsidize operating costs with a regional tax, I don't think the political will exists to write the big check up front.

As has already been stated:

1. The capital costs to construct the Woodward Light Rail were already in place.

2. If you can't afford to run LRT, how can you afford to run buses--which are much more labor and fuel-intensive--on the same route?

3. The suburbs already fund SMART with a regional tax.

[mwilbert]

1. The capital costs to construct the Woodward Light Rail were already in place.

My memory is that the M-1 people still hadn't agreed to pony up their part of the money when the plug got pulled. Do I misremember?

[ghettopalmetto]

My memory is that the M-1 people still hadn't agreed to pony up their part of the money when the plug got pulled. Do I misremember?

If that were the case, the project would not have been awarded the federal funding that had been approved.

[corktownyuppie]

As has already been stated:

1. The capital costs to construct the Woodward Light Rail were already in place.

I must be misunderstanding. The Woodward Light Rail -- whose capital costs were already in place -- were not a region-wide service. It stopped at 8 mile. The up-front capital for LRT was in place for the small plan. The tri-county plan does not have enough up-front capital for LRT.

2. If you can't afford to run LRT, how can you afford to run buses--which are much more labor and fuel-intensive--on the same route?

You can't run them on the same route. But they were never meant to be the same route. The M-1 LRT plan had a route which was much, much shorter than the tri-county plan.

3. The suburbs already fund SMART with a regional tax.

Yes, but that's not the same as a Regional Transit Authority. Each of the suburbs have the option of opting out of the SMART plan...which, of course, dilutes the funding source.

We need a strong RTA which represents all counties but has the authority to tax everyone in it as well.

[erikd]

I must be misunderstanding. The Woodward Light Rail -- whose capital costs were already in place -- were not a region-wide service. It stopped at 8 mile. The up-front capital for LRT was in place for the small plan. The tri-county plan does not have enough up-front capital for LRT.

You can't run them on the same route. But they were never meant to be the same route. The M-1 LRT plan had a route which was much, much shorter than the tri-county plan.

Yes, but that's not the same as a Regional Transit Authority. Each of the suburbs have the option of opting out of the SMART plan...which, of course, dilutes the funding source.

We need a strong RTA which represents all counties but has the authority to tax everyone in it as well.

corktownyuppie,

I think that you are misunderstanding our argument.

For the moment, let's put aside the discussion of a possible RTA, or the extremely unlikely concept of a regional rapid transit system, and focus on the viability of the fully-funded WWLR project.

The up-front capital was secured for the entire 9.3 mile stretch of Woodward, from downtown to 8 mile, not just the 3.4 mile stretch from downtown to New Center. This means that DDOT would completely eliminate the Woodward[[53) bus line, and probably eliminate the portion of the Dexter[[18) bus line that runs along Woodward and Cass [[just one block west of Woodward), up to Grand Boulevard.

The approved DDOT budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 is just under $150 million, which pays for the operation and maintenance of the 48 bus routes operated within city limits by DDOT. This works out to an average annual cost of about $3.1 million per bus line. Of course, some bus lines will cost more to operate than others, but this gives us a ballpark figure to work with.

On April 11, 2011, Detroit City Council approved the sale of bonds to finance the WWLR project, which would be paid for with the previously discussed private and federal funding sources. The official document presented to city council spelled out the construction and operation costs of the WWLR line, along with the funding sources. The official estimated cost of operating the WWLR line was $12-$16 million annually, through the year 2030. The funding would consist of $2.8 million in estimated annual fare revenue, with the balance coming from federal, state, and city funds. It was estimated that the city would only have to contribute $2 million annually from the general fund.

According to the budget numbers from official city documents, it would cost the city about $2 million annually to operate the Woodward light rail line, but it would result [[by my estimate) in a $3 million annual savings due to the elimination of the Woodward bus lines. This estimated decrease in annual operation cost is consistent with everything that I have ever read about the costs of light rail vs busses.

Even if these numbers are a little off, the annual cost of the WWLR line is extremely low, especially when put in context. Consider the fact that the city is giving the Detroit Zoo a $750,000 subsidy this year.

Bing and Snyder are claiming that we can't afford to operate a light rail line on Woodward, but all the numbers that I can find say that we can't afford to NOT operate a light rail line on Woodward.

[Wesley Mouch]

2. If you can't afford to run LRT, how can you afford to run buses--which are much more labor and fuel-intensive--on the same route?

Can you cite a reference on this? Certainly the in-the-field labor is more for BRT, although not necessarily much more. If you have trains [[or busses) every 15 minutes, then you have four [[4) drivers per hour. That would be the same either way -- since I don' think we're considering a driver-less system like Vancouver's Skytrain or Detroit's People Mover. So the labor is only higher for drivers if you increase the number of runs per hour. And you're only likely to increase runs/hour if you have revenue. So it may cost more to run, but only when you have income to cover it. Let us know.

[cramerro]

Can you cite a reference on this? Certainly the in-the-field labor is more for BRT, although not necessarily much more. If you have trains [[or busses) every 15 minutes, then you have four [[4) drivers per hour. That would be the same either way -- since I don' think we're considering a driver-less system like Vancouver's Skytrain or Detroit's People Mover. So the labor is only higher for drivers if you increase the number of runs per hour. And you're only likely to increase runs/hour if you have revenue. So it may cost more to run, but only when you have income to cover it. Let us know.

At the BRT forum at the zoo, they had high-level staff from Cleveland, Las Vegas, and one other property. Meghan Owens of TRU fame got up and made the statement that BRT costs much more than LRT to operate [[not really a question). The guy from Cleveland [[which also has rail) said that thier experience so far is that it is cheaper to operate the BRT line than thier rail line. Part of the reason he mentioned is that LRT advocates don't take into account the expense of providing the electricty for the lines... maintenance of the overhead wire system, maintenance of the power station[[s), and the actual per unit cost of purchasing/producing the electricity. Las Vegas rep also noted that thier operational costs have been lower than originally aniticpated. If "costs too much to operate" is all that the LRT slappys have, give it up.

[ghettopalmetto]

Can you cite a reference on this? Certainly the in-the-field labor is more for BRT, although not necessarily much more. If you have trains [[or busses) every 15 minutes, then you have four [[4) drivers per hour. That would be the same either way -- since I don' think we're considering a driver-less system like Vancouver's Skytrain or Detroit's People Mover. So the labor is only higher for drivers if you increase the number of runs per hour. And you're only likely to increase runs/hour if you have revenue. So it may cost more to run, but only when you have income to cover it. Let us know.

And are the BRT proponents including the cost of diesel at $4+ per gallon??? Note that construction of overhead electrical catenary is a capital cost [[which is eligible for federal money) whereas diesel is an ongoing operational cost.

In addition...it is true that it's cheaper to operate a bus per vehicle mile than a rail vehicle. But since buses tend to have lower ridership, you're spending "less" money to operate an empty vehicle = less farebox recovery [[which explains why farebox recovery ratio in Detroit is so miserable, and why it's so much higher in cities like New York and DC with well-developed rail systems).

The standard metric of transit operating costs is the Per Passenger Mile basis. If you look at the National Transit Database--which consists of records reported by each transit agency in the United States--light rail is almost always lower on a per passenger mile basis. This is, in part, because light rail has a higher load-carrying capacity, and also because it contributes to denser neighborhoods.

Let's look at a few passenger-per-mile costs for transit agencies that operate both buses and light rail. Note that each of these agencies also operate heavy rail [[subway-type) lines. Numbers are from 2010.

http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm

Greater Cleveland RTA
Bus $1.05
Light rail $0.93
Heavy rail $0.87
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/5015.pdf

[[NOTE: for the person who suggested operating rail along railroad right-of-way, Cleveland's Red Line heavy rail is what you get when you do so!)

Philadelphia SEPTA
Bus $1.05
Light rail $0.89
Heavy rail $0.39
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/3019.pdf

Boston MBTA
Bus $1.23
Light rail $0.91
Heavy rail $0.64
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram...files/1003.pdf