Bus rapid transit system could boost metro Detroit, experts say

[Parkguy]

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.

Every foot of pavement is subsidized, and, as I have read, EVERY airport is a money-loser. Transit and transport is always a cost, but it is a cost we have to undertake as one of the basic functions of society, whether it is paid for by taxes or paid for privately. I would just like to see the money reallocated to create a better mix of modes.

[ghettopalmetto]

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.

You're talking about COMMUTER RAIL. And doing a whole lot of guesswork too. A planner should know the better.

But please do let us know when I-75 starts turning a profit.

[antongast]

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've met a lot of suburbanites who aren't even aware that there are two bus systems, so even if they're basing their claims on SMART buses only, they're using those claims to make arguments about transportation policy in metro Detroit that aren't limited to SMART. Anyway, Dave Bing has definitely tried to downplay his service cuts by talking about empty DDOT buses, so it's not just suburbanites talking about SMART.

I live in the city and don't ride SMART very often, especially now that I have to transfer at the city limits during off-peak hours, but I've occasionally ridden the Woodward routes [[mostly south of 11 Mile), the 9, 10, and 12 Mile crosstowns, the Greenfield [[back and forth between Northland and the Fairgrounds, and up to 11 1/2 Mile), and the Van Dyke, and can't remember any of them ever being empty. They might empty out more as you get further into the sticks, but in the parts of southern Oakland and Macomb where I usually travel they seem pretty well patronized. I've been on 450 and 460 buses that were standing-room only from Woodward and Warren into Royal Oak.

[DetroitPlanner]

20 percent of the federal highway trust fund and nearly ten percent of the Michigan gas tax fund is used to support transit. It is nearly impossible for highway funding to be looked at in terms of profit because its receipts are used to provide for transit, non-motorized, and other transportation improvements. The economic benefits of the road system should be obvious. Roads have been used to facilitate trade since the days when Rome was a superpower.

[ghettopalmetto]

20 percent of the federal highway trust fund and nearly ten percent of the Michigan gas tax fund is used to support transit. It is nearly impossible for highway funding to be looked at in terms of profit because its receipts are used to provide for transit, non-motorized, and other transportation improvements. The economic benefits of the road system should be obvious. Roads have been used to facilitate trade since the days when Rome was a superpower.

So roads in the United States [[and Michigan) would be profitable if gas tax monies were not diverted toward transit? Are you aware that the Federal Highway Trust Fund required appropriations from the General Fund for three years running, just to remain solvent? Please show your math. I wouldn't want anyone to think that you're just guessing and making shit up.

This is just sheer, absolute nonsense. Anything to justify the status quo, right?

The economic benefits of transit should be obvious too. Just look at New York, Chicago, London, Paris, DC, Philadelphia or any other civilized city vis-a-vis Detroit. The once mighty "Paris of the West"--wealthiest city in the world in the 1920s--has somehow managed to slip out of the picture, despite all the miles of wealth-generating roads it has constructed over the decades.

[Wesley Mouch]

20 percent of the federal highway trust fund and nearly ten percent of the Michigan gas tax fund is used to support transit. It is nearly impossible for highway funding to be looked at in terms of profit because its receipts are used to provide for transit, non-motorized, and other transportation improvements. The economic benefits of the road system should be obvious. Roads have been used to facilitate trade since the days when Rome was a superpower.

Transit is transportation. Roads are transportation. Our error is thinking about these as separate things.

[ghettopalmetto]

Transit is transportation. Roads are transportation. Our error is thinking about these as separate things.

I think the status quo in Michigan is more accurately the converse, in that "transportation = roads".

[Detroitnerd]

I think the status quo in Michigan is more accurately the converse, in that "transportation = roads".

Yup. I see this crop up over and over again. And it's so ingrained that it's never questioned. A system of roads and personal vehicles is the most tremendously expensive way to move everything. And it's only going to get more expensive. And it offers mobility to only a fraction of the total population. And while Michigan pours billions into road-building, it condemns serious mass transportation as expensive, wasteful and that it's not a system everybody can take advantage of.

Even Orwell would be impressed...

[Wesley Mouch]

So to pull it all back to the thread title... yes, BRT would boost metro Detroit! Maybe not as much as LRT, but we'd be better off with BRT than nothing.

Good night.

[erikd]

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.

Detroitplanner and all,

We don't need to come up with billions of dollars for the capital costs of rail. All we have to do is take the $125 million from private M1 funding, couple it with the matching federal [[New Starts) funds, and we get a light rail line on Woodward with virtually no capital expenditure from our local and state governments. This is an amazing opportunity for a free light rail line that we simply can't afford to pass up.

If we don't take the private/federal funds to build light rail on Woodward, then we will get nothing. This isn't an either-or situation.

We can't just take the WWLR funding and use it for BRT instead, because that isn't how it works.

If we do not accept the WWLR gift, and choose to focus on a BRT system instead, then we will forfeit the $125 million in private funding from the M1 group, which will result in us losing the matching federal New Starts grants as well.

The private M-1 group has made it very clear that they want light rail on Woodward, not BRT or some type of gussied-up SMART bus. If we refuse to accept their light rail gift, the private M1 group will simply keep their money and the local/state governments will have to find a way to come up with the $125 million in up-front capital funds needed to qualify for the matching federal funds.

The Snyder/Bing BRT proposal calls for 110 miles of BRT to be constructed for a cost of $550 million, which is about $2.5 BILLION less than what it would actually cost to build that many miles of BRT. The Euclid BRT line in Cleveland, which has been used as an example of the Snyder/Bing plan, cost $200 million for 7 miles of BRT, which comes out to $28-29 million per mile. There is simply no way that dedicated-lane BRT can be built for the $5 million per mile cost proposed by Snyder/Bing.

The best transit system we could build for $5 million a mile would basically be an express bus line, possibly featuring upgraded bus shelters, articulated busses, and/or real-time arrival/departure tracking. While this would certainly be an upgrade from our current bus system, it would not meet the criteria needed to qualify for matching capital funding under the federal New Starts program.

Considering the fact that the Snyder/Bing BRT proposal is not based on anything close to reality, there is virtually no chance that their proposal would qualify for federal funding under the New Starts program, which means that the capital cost of their "alternative proposal" would have to be fully paid for by our local and state governments. There is almost no hope that our local and state governments will agree to come up with $550 million to build a system of express bus lines that do not offer the benefits of real BRT or LRT lines. It just isn't going to happen.

This means that we don't actually have a choice between a regional BRT system and Woodward light rail. We have a choice between Woodward light rail and nothing.

[Wesley Mouch]

<snip>
This means that we don't actually have a choice between a regional BRT system and Woodward light rail. We have a choice between Woodward light rail and nothing.

Develop good plans, appropriate to our situation, and find a way to fund it. Sometime you have to lead, not follow.