Bus rapid transit system could boost metro Detroit, experts say

[downtownguy]

^^The People Mover!!!!

[chicagoforlife]

I just got approved on this site, I was invited and thought it would be ok to join. I'm from Chicago and enjoy discussing urban renewal and developments. I have been to Detroit several times, I have family that lives in Michigan.

As far as this BRT goes it surprises me to no end on why Detroit doesn't have at least a light rail line. Here in Chicago we have the CTA which has the L and a massive bus system as well as commuter trains via Metra and Amtrak. We also have more of a suburban bus system called PACE.

I don't really care for Detroit but will put that aside here and discuss things on a civil basis with all of you. I like some things that are happening in Detroit.

I've read about the Woodward Light Rail line and was shocked when Detroit opted for a BRT system instead. I know that BRT would cover a larger area than one LRT line but I don't think that there will be any new development if there isn't a rail system. Chicago's L works really well and serves a lot of the city. The southwest side was one area where there wasn't an L line but that changed with the addition of the CTA orange line to Midway and the CTA pink line to 5400 west and Cermak.

[professorscott]

Welcome Chicago. You have a great city. Detroit can't get an LRT line because there isn't any source of money to pay for it, basically. Our methods for funding transit are inadequate and not easily changed, and our historic legacy of extreme local control makes it nearly impossible to do anything regional. But we're trying.

[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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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.

I would guess that the tables tilt to LRT with high ridership. And if we can get to high ridership, then we don't have a money problem, do we.

[chicagoforlife]

Welcome Chicago. You have a great city. Detroit can't get an LRT line because there isn't any source of money to pay for it, basically. Our methods for funding transit are inadequate and not easily changed, and our historic legacy of extreme local control makes it nearly impossible to do anything regional. But we're trying.

Thank you for the welcome. Chicago is indeed one of the great cities of this world. Wasn't there a plan backed by private investors to build a smaller scale LRT? I think I remember seeing something about that because I became interested in Detroit's bid for a light rail system. I'm a big railfan and ride on Chicago's L system every single day. It's hard when you don't have the funds to do anything, I guarantee though that if Detroit did have a rail system that they would have pretty close to the same density that Chicago does, I think Chicago is some where around 13,000 per square mile, I know Detroit isn't as densely populated, that's probably a major reason why it's not.

[professorscott]

Thank you for the welcome. Chicago is indeed one of the great cities of this world. Wasn't there a plan backed by private investors to build a smaller scale LRT?

Not "was", "is". That plan is still on the table and being considered. The BRT folks have been in contact with the smaller scale LRT plan folks [[they call it "M1 Rail", since Woodward is state highway 1, and in Michigan the state highways are M-whatever). In my very humble opinion, M1 Rail and BRT on Woodward would complement each other nicely: BRT providing quick service between suburbs and from the suburbs into and through the City, and the LRT making the stops at all the important facilities between New Center and Downtown.

[antongast]

And if we can get to high ridership, then we don't have a money problem, do we.

Incorrect.

[Wesley Mouch]

Incorrect.

Yeah, I suppose I'm being too optimistic.

[Detroitnerd]

Incorrect.

We already have money problems. We can't pay for the roads we have. And we keep seeing plans to expand the roads that we already can't pay for. Like spending about $2 BILLION to expand a few miles of I-94. But that's okey-dokey in Michigan.

But what? Building a light rail system? That would be WAY too expensive! All of a sudden, blinkered Michiganders want to look super-closely at every expense and decry it. What an outrage this mass transit boondoggle will be! [[Even though it has driven investment and growth where it has been put in. Forget that. Repeat: Boondoggle! Boondoggle! Boondoggle!)

But roads? Those are investments in Michigan's future!

[antongast]

Yeah, I suppose I'm being too optimistic.

I don't see it as optimistic or pessimistic, necessarily, it's just that transit ridership and operating revenue don't correlate as much as people think they do. If we want better transit in metro Detroit, we will have to tax ourselves to pay for it, period. Ridership is already very high on major corridors in the city, and more ridership without a new revenue source will increase operating costs much faster than it will increase revenue.

[Detroitnerd]

Then we're back into the "farebox fallacy."

[antongast]

Then we're back into the "farebox fallacy."

Also the "nobody rides the bus in Detroit" fallacy, which is a subset of the "black people are invisible" fallacy.

[Detroitnerd]

Also the "nobody rides the bus in Detroit" fallacy, which is a subset of the "black people are invisible" fallacy.

Yup. Or when you hear somebody say, "But those buses are half-empty," [[though we know that when you need them most, they're not) think of how many cars in metro Detroit are 3/4 empty, or 4/5 empty, or 5/6 empty...

[DetroitPlanner]

Yup. Or when you hear somebody say, "But those buses are half-empty," [[though we know that when you need them most, they're not) think of how many cars in metro Detroit are 3/4 empty, or 4/5 empty, or 5/6 empty...

I agree most cars have plenty of unused capacity. Ever notice that the cars with the most capacity are driven by soccer moms who "need" a behemouth SUV to drive thier two kids around in? I am sure thier parents drove her around in a Cavalier. They justify this by their kids have a lot of things. Well maybe the kids have a lot of things because you mom have taught them the wrong life lessons about the differences between 'needs' and 'wants'!

Ever notice that most of the people you hear saying this live at the periphery? Of course the buses are half-empty! If they were full you would have serious issues with managing your transit system. You never hear anyone saying that who spend time downtown or by Fairlane/Northland or some other regional transit hub.

[chicagoforlife]

Not "was", "is". That plan is still on the table and being considered. The BRT folks have been in contact with the smaller scale LRT plan folks [[they call it "M1 Rail", since Woodward is state highway 1, and in Michigan the state highways are M-whatever). In my very humble opinion, M1 Rail and BRT on Woodward would complement each other nicely: BRT providing quick service between suburbs and from the suburbs into and through the City, and the LRT making the stops at all the important facilities between New Center and Downtown.

Oh ok I was under the impression that the whole LRT thing was canceled. Maybe by the time they do build the smaller scale LRT line they might have the ability to extend it even further. I think they would compliment each other nicely, an improved bus system would do wonders and a rail line would do wonders to Detroit. I think that if they did a rail system even 3 miles away from downtown it would do great things and give them the motivation to extend it even further. I also think a line to the airport is needed as well. The L reaches both O'Hare and Midway and does a wonderful job of providing mass transit in the city.

I don't know how Detroit has their expressways but Chicago's expressways all head towards downtown and they use the expressway medians here for the L. The Kennedy, Dan Ryan and Eisenhower all have an L line going down the median at some point or another. It's a great way to get around the city. I don't live too far from the red line at the 47th Street stop and walk there to use it all the time, sure saves on gas when gas is $4.59 a gallon like it is right now.

[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

[professorscott]

Comparing light rail with buses in any region is not an apples to apples comparison. Light rail is almost always an express service, at least mostly, while the buses in any region are mostly local.

It costs a lot of money to operate a bus when the bus has to stop every couple of blocks. If you took your car, drove it down Woodward Avenue, and stopped every couple blocks and idled for 30 or 40 seconds, your mileage would totally suck. So one of the reasons it costs more money to operate a local bus than an express light rail is that the bus is wasting fuel idling quite a bit of the time.

If you could compare light rail to BRT in any community, and I'm not sure those numbers exist anywhere, I think you'd see a different picture.

But anyhow none of that is relevant. The facts are:

1. BRT might happen in metro Detroit.
2. LRT, on a large scale, will not happen in metro Detroit.

So even if you like LRT [[and I do), it's not possible. Sorry. Deal with it. It's BRT or nothing at all, right now.

[ghettopalmetto]

So even if you like LRT [[and I do), it's not possible. Sorry. Deal with it. It's BRT or nothing at all, right now.

Let's not kid ourselves. There's nothing "rapid" about what Rick Snyder is proposing.

As you are someone quite knowledgeable about transit, I implore you to please stop promoting the fallacy that bus "rapid" transit is somehow an equivalent mode to rail. It is not, it will saddle the region with enormous operating costs, and the politics of such a poor decision will preclude any sort of rail transit in the region for the interminable future.

[Wesley Mouch]

Comparing light rail with buses in any region is not an apples to apples comparison. Light rail is almost always an express service, at least mostly, while the buses in any region are mostly local.

With all due respect, Prof, this is not really true anymore.

There's a lot of preconceptions about BRT bus service, and assumptions about light rail service [[LRT). Your generalizations are accurate about the past, but not the future.

Not all LRT is express. Some runs on grade separate roads/viaducts. Some runs on boulevards, or even in place right on streets. Some run long trains, but elsewhere trains not much bigger than an articulated bus.

BRT is of course a nascent form of transit -- but there is no reason why busses can't be implemented in express service. They can run on regular streets, best with at least separate lanes, but even better on grade separated roadway. The only real disadvantages are number of passengers per vehicle limited to about 100, where LRT can scale up to much larger numbers per driver. And LRT can in theory be driverless.

If you lump BRT in a class with busses, then you're not really getting BRT. BRT done right should be indistinguishable from LRT, except that it rolls on wheels, has drivers, and smaller individual vehicles. Fares should be pre-paid, no steps in/out of busses, stations spaced apart at least as far as typical LRT.

It costs a lot of money to operate a bus when the bus has to stop every couple of blocks. If you took your car, drove it down Woodward Avenue, and stopped every couple blocks and idled for 30 or 40 seconds, your mileage would totally suck. So one of the reasons it costs more money to operate a local bus than an express light rail is that the bus is wasting fuel idling quite a bit of the time.
<snip>

Again, I think you're assuming no improvements in these vehicles. In the next few years, you're gonna see busses change. Cleveland has hybrid-electric busses on their BRT line. There's development in Germany on all-electric busses that recharge while they briefly stop. Once the technology for hybrids is mature and tested, you can bet than new busses will capture braking energy and become very efficient.

One of the reasons I'm excited by BRT is that you're gonna see some amazing vehicles coming soon.

On the other hand, light rail is so 60's.

[ghettopalmetto]

BRT is of course a nascent form of transit -- but there is no reason why busses can't be implemented in express service. They can run on regular streets, best with at least separate lanes, but even better on grade separated roadway. The only real disadvantages are number of passengers per vehicle limited to about 100, where LRT can scale up to much larger numbers per driver. And LRT can in theory be driverless.

If you lump BRT in a class with busses, then you're not really getting BRT. BRT done right should be indistinguishable from LRT, except that it rolls on wheels, has drivers, and smaller individual vehicles. Fares should be pre-paid, no steps in/out of busses, stations spaced apart at least as far as typical LRT.

But see, there's the rub, Wesley Mouch. None of those characteristics: prepaid fares, no steps, spaced stations have anything to do with "rapid" operation of the vehicles. And there isn't anything precluding DDOT or SMART from implementing those traits on existing routes [[which would improve service), yet without the overselling of the service as some sort of "rapid" transit.

For example, when I was in Warsaw, Poland, you had to buy a ticket for the bus prior to boarding, usually at a newsstand or convenience store. When you board the bus [[or streetcar), you feed the ticket into a machine to validate it. Same story in Krakow, except the tickets are sold out of vending machines on the street. Mind you, this wasn't for any special sort of lipstick-on-a-pig transit route, but ALL buses and trams in the city. This is not high-tech stuff!

There are cities in the U.S. [[Ann Arbor is one of them) that already have low-floor buses on existing routes. And there's nothing stopping DDOT or SMART from removing a few bus stop signs here-and-there, or implementing skip-stop service, as Washington Metro does with the 79 Metrobus, which runs concurrrently on Georgia Avenue with the 70 and 71 local routes.

This is the EASY stuff. It improves service without the pretense of rapid transit [[because it's NOT rapid transit). And it's relatively cheap. Yet while these are positive aspects, they're never going to overcome the lower capacity, higher operating costs, lower average operating speeds, shorter operating life, and inferior acceleration/deceleration of buses.

No paint job or nomenclature is going to give DDOT more mechanics to keep the buses in a state of good repair, either.

I just find it a damned shame that Detroit is going to spend the next 20 years planning some sort of bus-based "rapid transit system", study the damned thing to death, and come up with "revolutionary ideas" that they could have implemented right now [[or even 20 years ago). It still ain't gonna be rapid.

[ghettopalmetto]

Again, I think you're assuming no improvements in these vehicles. In the next few years, you're gonna see busses change. Cleveland has hybrid-electric busses on their BRT line. There's development in Germany on all-electric busses that recharge while they briefly stop. Once the technology for hybrids is mature and tested, you can bet than new busses will capture braking energy and become very efficient.

One of the reasons I'm excited by BRT is that you're gonna see some amazing vehicles coming soon.

It doesn't matter what color new buses are painted, if they're made to look like a bullet train, or if they run on nuclear fusion. Rubber on asphalt will ALWAYS have higher coefficients of static and kinetic friction than steel-on-steel. Thus, acceleration and deceleration will ALWAYS be worse with buses. Add to that a cacophony of moving mechanical parts that require a hell of a lot more maintenance than an electric engine.

The most "amazing" bus in the world will still be outperformed by an electrically powered rail vehicle.

[DetroitPlanner]

Unless you can come up with billions of dollars for the capital costs of rail, you are stuck with a bus only system. Therefore comparing per mile operating costs are not really helpful.

SEPTA may run rail to its airport, but it is still losing money on it. Say the airport is 15 miles from downtown, the per passenger cost using the figures above would be $5.85. In order to make ridership attractive I doubt they can chages more than $4-$5 for providing the service leaving the rail line in the hole. Bus rides are usually much shorter, particularly in a region with more rail. Therefore a 2 mile bus ride would not cost that much different than it brings in through the ticket prices. Its when the bus rides become longer the operational costs play a bigger factor. Rail and Buses wear out and need replacement. These are chagred as capital costs not operational costs.

[Bham1982]

Yup. Or when you hear somebody say, "But those buses are half-empty," [[though we know that when you need them most, they're not) think of how many cars in metro Detroit are 3/4 empty, or 4/5 empty, or 5/6 empty...

I think people are saying that SMART buses are empty, not D-DOT buses. Most suburbanites aren't driving down Davison and Linwood, so they're clueless about relative D-DOT capacity.

I tend to agree with those folks re. SMART. Obviously it's just random observations, but most SMART buses appear to be 100% empty, even at rush hour. Sometimes you'll see two or three folks on a bus. At rush hour you may see one person waiting along Woodward/14 Mile.

And my workday drive takes me along presumably major SMART corridors [[Woodward, Southfield, 14 Mile, Coolidge).