Example of Rapid Bus Transit

[ghettopalmetto]

I like hearing these stories and getting some perspective. BRT isn't a replacement for Light Rail, but it does appear to provide a level of service between B & LR.

More transit options can only help increase transit availability. GP seems worried that BRT will replace LR in planning. Some places that's true, but where you have the volume for LR -- and the funding -- LR makes the most sense.

Bingo! You nailed it.

Detroit is already at the point where light rail isn't *legally* an option, because politicians have been convinced the bus rapid transit is an acceptable and cheaper substitute. Greater Cleveland RTA has drunk so much of it's own saccharine-sweet Kool-Aid, that they're starting to force BRT on other corridors without even so much as considering an expansion of rail service as an option.

Bus rapid transit is not necessarily bad. It's just not a substitute for true rapid transit. So I'd prefer if the powers-that-be cease and desist selling us rain while they piss down our backs.

[Wesley Mouch]

BRT is really effective at one thing: Moving the public discussion away from workable, rail-based rapid transit systems that masses of people will use. While we're at it, why not propose a PRT system? Or a maglev with a stop every mile?

That's because you haven't explained why rail is better.

I hear that only rail brings econ. development. Thus, you say BRT has no econ. development.

Dollar for dollar, I don't know that rail does bring more econ. benefit. I think the reasonably efficient movement of people and goods is what matters. So LR great; BRT good [[and efficient for $); Busses good; wider I94 good; syncronized signals, good; roads good. Just do them all where appropriate and not in excess.

But poo-pooing BRT solely because you think it doesn't spur econ development -- doesn't work. Try harder.

[DetroitPlanner]

BRT is really effective at one thing: Moving the public discussion away from workable, rail-based rapid transit systems that masses of people will use. While we're at it, why not propose a PRT system? Or a maglev with a stop every mile?

Maglev every mile? Now there is a thought. Certainly fast, would need to do it like the people mover here so it would be pretty and all. However the construction and operating costs would be high, particularly when you factor in all of the barf clean-ups by starting and stopping the thing over and over like it is that Dragster Roller Coaster at Cedar Point.

[emu steve]

If I've done this right, I have an attachment which show the BRT in Alexandria, Va.

It shows the median lane, the traffic signals for vehicles and for the bus as well as a bus shelter and a number of apartments going up [[on the left side of the street).

The left side of the street is part of a very large area full of apartment, condo and town house development. [[pricey stuff). [[this is a very low resolution image. The gray units do not have their facade, brick, done yet).

[emu steve]

This is a closer shot of the traffic signals.

I could see some confusion as to right of way for the bus in the median lane and the other traffic.

I guess a green arrow mean okay for regular traffic to make a left turn.

If the bus has the right to proceed its light should be green and the arrow [[for other vehicles) should be red.

I assume we could have a 'green light' for the bus and green lights for cars [[but a red left turn signal).

[Detroitnerd]

That's because you haven't explained why rail is better.

I hear that only rail brings econ. development. Thus, you say BRT has no econ. development.

Dollar for dollar, I don't know that rail does bring more econ. benefit. I think the reasonably efficient movement of people and goods is what matters. So LR great; BRT good [[and efficient for $); Busses good; wider I94 good; syncronized signals, good; roads good. Just do them all where appropriate and not in excess.

But poo-pooing BRT solely because you think it doesn't spur econ development -- doesn't work. Try harder.

Put words in my mouth, why doncha. Easier than having a discussion.

There's also the higher operating costs, lower carrying capacity, "mode of choice" factor associated with the smooth ride, and the fact that developers see rails in the ground and know a transit provider is serious.

Besides, I've added "BRT creep" to my laundry list of complaints.

I'm not saying that BRT can't work. I'm just saying it won't work as well. And that BRT is a recipe for dying the death of a thousand cuts and becoming … bus service, the very thing it's supposed to replace.

But, hey, if it makes you feel better, just stick with what you think I believe about BRT and debate the figment in your imagination.

[professorscott]

This is a closer shot of the traffic signals.

I could see some confusion as to right of way for the bus in the median lane and the other traffic.

I guess a green arrow mean okay for regular traffic to make a left turn.

If the bus has the right to proceed its light should be green and the arrow [[for other vehicles) should be red.

I assume we could have a 'green light' for the bus and green lights for cars [[but a red left turn signal).

The red/green signals are only for the vehicles in the automobile lanes. The bus signal is the lower one on the post, and it's always white. Horizontal white line means stop for the bus lanes, vertical white line means go, and white triangle appears to be the equivalent of a yellow light.

The police, for several days, have been enforcing the prohibition against regular traffic in the bus lanes.

[Pale Justice]

You must have stopped at E66th Street then, and noticed all the empty fields across the street from Gallucci's market. Because, you know, magic bus = development.

The Cleveland Clinic has been expanding for decades. Cleveland State University was expanding before the bus project obtained funding. The residential population on the downtown stretch of Euclid was expanding when the Euclid Corridor was still on the drawing board as a light rail line. So it's completely disingenuous and dishonest to claim that the HealthLine resulted in a single nickel of economic development.

I'd say that's not entirely true. I don't think you see the Midtown Tech Park at that spot. They mention the Healthline at their site. There are plenty of vacant industrial properties in the city, but developers applied for tax credits to renovate the Victory Building. This is the second group to show interest. The presence of the HL has to have had at least some influence.

[Detroitnerd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXDAIBvI48w

[ghettopalmetto]

I'd say that's not entirely true. I don't think you see the Midtown Tech Park at that spot. They mention the Healthline at their site. There are plenty of vacant industrial properties in the city, but developers applied for tax credits to renovate the Victory Building. This is the second group to show interest. The presence of the HL has to have had at least some influence.

Well, GCRTA has been claiming upwards of $4 billion of redevelopment due to the HealthLine. Now, recall this service opened in 2008. GCRTA was claiming that dollar figure *as soon as the service began*. What did they include in that number? A whole host of projects that were 1) publicly funded, 2) going to happen regardless or 3) both.

http://blog.cleveland.com/ent_impact...10cgEUCLID.pdf

Note that $1.6 billion of the "redevelopment" was strictly due to the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals. Another $258 million for the Museum of Art expansion, $200 million for the new county headquarters [[Ameritrust) project, and $275 million at Cleveland State University. It seems they just took every dollar of development happening within several blocks of Euclid Avenue, and blamed it on the BRT service. Do you see RTA blaming the West Side Market upgrades--or development in Ohio City--on the W25th Rapid station? No.

Now if I start seeing some of those open fields adjacent to the stations in Midtown being replaced with new apartment buildings, my opinion could change. But that's not what's happening.

[Patrick]

Living right next to the Metroway [[Arlington/Alexandria) has provided me front row access to its development and implementation. Already, people along the route, and in my neighborhood are calling it the "useless loop" and the "bus to nowhere." I guess time will tell if this idea works because the plan is to have something like 3,500 daily riders within 3 years. Even with that said, a lot of people refuse to ride the metro buses, regardless if they are snazzy and new with all the bells and whistles.

The area in Arlington/Alexandria between Crystal City and the northern tip of Old Town is going to see a lot of change in the next 6 or 7 years. Pulte is making progress on their monstrous [[and cheaply built) Potomac Yard project that starts in the 600s. There is also a pretty good rumor that the Potomac Yards shopping center will be razed and rebuilt to accommodate a similar Pulte-like complex built on top of shopping and retail, much like what is seen in Pentagon City.

[LP_85]

There's also the higher operating costs, lower carrying capacity, "mode of choice" factor associated with the smooth ride, and the fact that developers see rails in the ground and know a transit provider is serious.

Besides, I've added "BRT creep" to my laundry list of complaints.

I'm not saying that BRT can't work. I'm just saying it won't work as well. And that BRT is a recipe for dying the death of a thousand cuts and becoming … bus service, the very thing it's supposed to replace.

"BRT creep" is exactly what has me concerned when I hear people trying to push BRT over Light Rail. It's always the same argument - let's just do BRT because it's cheaper. Except, if you want BRT to actually offer the same level of service as rail, it can cost nearly as much, if not more than rail. And of the five "true" BRT systems in the U.S., none reach that standard.

Does that mean it's not an effective means of transit? Not necessarily. But when I hear politicians and bureaucrats pushing it, it sounds more like a way to cut corners. If all you're going to do is buy some big fancy buses and add a few lines of paint to the roadway, why bother with the expense in the first place when you could just use the existing bus system and run an express route? In my mind, putting rails in the ground shows a real commitment to workable, effective rapid transit.

[professorscott]

If all you're going to do is buy some big fancy buses and add a few lines of paint to the roadway, why bother with the expense in the first place when you could just use the existing bus system and run an express route? In my mind, putting rails in the ground shows a real commitment to workable, effective rapid transit.

Because Uncle Sugar decides what he'll pay for, and it is harder to qualify a project for LRT than it is for BRT.

[ghettopalmetto]

Because Uncle Sugar decides what he'll pay for, and it is harder to qualify a project for LRT than it is for BRT.

You can thank the Bush Jr. Administration for that.

BRT is a cynical method to get transit dollars into the hands of road contractors, all while paying just enough transit lip service to placate urbanites.

[Wesley Mouch]

Because Uncle Sugar decides what he'll pay for, and it is harder to qualify a project for LRT than it is for BRT.

But somehow everyone but Detroit managed to get this done. Even St. Louis and Cleveland.

Blaming the man may feel good -- but unless you think the man hates Detroit, but not Buffalo -- you are misdirecting your anger.

[professorscott]

But somehow everyone but Detroit managed to get this done. Even St. Louis and Cleveland.

Blaming the man may feel good -- but unless you think the man hates Detroit, but not Buffalo -- you are misdirecting your anger.

Okay, then I'll be more specific. Sorry, we're going to be making sausage here, but it is what it is.

I'll start with Buffalo, NY. Buffalo is a great city to bring up, because the Buffalo subway is one of the very reasons the government has veered sharply toward promoting less expensive forms of transit, except in rare circumstances. The ease with which cities could get new rail projects funded - especially very expensive ones like subways where none ever existed - has diminished drastically in the 30+ years since Buffalo's project was approved.

You mention St. Louis. It took a while to get that done because they had [[but solved) the local-match issues we have [[and have not solved). Also, they had one particularly heavy transit corridor which, as I mention in a minute, helps move such projects along.

Cleveland I don't know why you even mention. GCRTA assumed control of railway which was still in service, and had been for decades, when it came into existence in the mid 1970s. The big deal change since then is precisely a BRT line. Cleveland hasn't got back into rail transit; it never went away. I'm not super familiar with Cleveland so if I'm wrong let me know, but they are not one of these cities which had completely done away with rail transit and is now trying to put it back.

There is, now, in 2014, a sort of formula the FTA uses in deciding which projects are "competitive", their term. One of the main drivers is existing transit ridership in a corridor which has been proposed for upgrades. If your ridership is at a certain level or below, you can't get anything funded. If it's at that level or higher, you can qualify for BRT; that is, at least your project would be competitive; it still may not get funded. Light rail is based on a higher level of existing ridership, and anything more expensive requires higher still.

Commuter rail is kind of off to the side since usually it is projected along existing tracks; the infrastructure costs aren't as high since you're usually upgrading signals, adding bypass track and things like that. So let's keep commuter rail out of this for the moment.

When I was studying this in detail between 2006 and 2008, it became apparent that the only two corridors in metro Detroit with existing ridership sufficient to qualify for FTA funded light rail were Woodward and Gratiot. A few more corridors would qualify, pretty easily, for BRT. Since then things have got worse; that is, the requirements have got even tighter, so it would be difficult to qualify Woodward for light rail unless you cut it off at downtown Royal Oak [[north of there the ridership is not close to sufficient to qualify). Oakland County isn't interested in a huge project that only benefits the lower three miles of the County, so there we are.

Gratiot actually has a better chance of light rail as the "locally preferred alternative" because the ridership is very strong all the way from the north city limits of Mount Clemens to downtown Detroit. But Woodward already has had a study partly completed, so Woodward gets to go first.

Now, why Detroit didn't do these things when everybody else did: we were living fat, dumb and happy off cars, thought that would go on forever, and there was just no appetite for change. We all know now how that worked out.

[Wesley Mouch]

Okay, then I'll be more specific. Sorry, we're going to be making sausage here, but it is what it is.

I'll start with Buffalo, NY. Buffalo is a great city to bring up, because the Buffalo subway is one of the very reasons the government has veered sharply toward promoting less expensive forms of transit, except in rare circumstances. The ease with which cities could get new rail projects funded - especially very expensive ones like subways where none ever existed - has diminished drastically in the 30+ years since Buffalo's project was approved.

You mention St. Louis. It took a while to get that done because they had [[but solved) the local-match issues we have [[and have not solved). Also, they had one particularly heavy transit corridor which, as I mention in a minute, helps move such projects along.

Cleveland I don't know why you even mention. GCRTA assumed control of railway which was still in service, and had been for decades, when it came into existence in the mid 1970s. The big deal change since then is precisely a BRT line. Cleveland hasn't got back into rail transit; it never went away. I'm not super familiar with Cleveland so if I'm wrong let me know, but they are not one of these cities which had completely done away with rail transit and is now trying to put it back.

There is, now, in 2014, a sort of formula the FTA uses in deciding which projects are "competitive", their term. One of the main drivers is existing transit ridership in a corridor which has been proposed for upgrades. If your ridership is at a certain level or below, you can't get anything funded. If it's at that level or higher, you can qualify for BRT; that is, at least your project would be competitive; it still may not get funded. Light rail is based on a higher level of existing ridership, and anything more expensive requires higher still.

Commuter rail is kind of off to the side since usually it is projected along existing tracks; the infrastructure costs aren't as high since you're usually upgrading signals, adding bypass track and things like that. So let's keep commuter rail out of this for the moment.

When I was studying this in detail between 2006 and 2008, it became apparent that the only two corridors in metro Detroit with existing ridership sufficient to qualify for FTA funded light rail were Woodward and Gratiot. A few more corridors would qualify, pretty easily, for BRT. Since then things have got worse; that is, the requirements have got even tighter, so it would be difficult to qualify Woodward for light rail unless you cut it off at downtown Royal Oak [[north of there the ridership is not close to sufficient to qualify). Oakland County isn't interested in a huge project that only benefits the lower three miles of the County, so there we are.

Gratiot actually has a better chance of light rail as the "locally preferred alternative" because the ridership is very strong all the way from the north city limits of Mount Clemens to downtown Detroit. But Woodward already has had a study partly completed, so Woodward gets to go first.

Now, why Detroit didn't do these things when everybody else did: we were living fat, dumb and happy off cars, thought that would go on forever, and there was just no appetite for change. We all know now how that worked out.

Thanks for the info. From what I know, you're pretty much right in Cleveland. I listed them because they somehow are funded for BRT, so they did sometime we didn't do years ago.

That they only fund where there's ridership also has probably been a challenge for Detroit. You can't the ridership numbers for funding unless your busses can get out of the yard and onto the roads. There's zero ridership for a broken bus.

So like most everything else in Detroit -- we'd be well-served to stop bitching about money, and start running the city well. Then people will fund.

Thanks.

[Pickford-Bentler]

Living right next to the Metroway [[Arlington/Alexandria) has provided me front row access to its development and implementation. Already, people along the route, and in my neighborhood are calling it the "useless loop" and the "bus to nowhere." I guess time will tell if this idea works because the plan is to have something like 3,500 daily riders within 3 years. Even with that said, a lot of people refuse to ride the metro buses, regardless if they are snazzy and new with all the bells and whistles.

The area in Arlington/Alexandria between Crystal City and the northern tip of Old Town is going to see a lot of change in the next 6 or 7 years. Pulte is making progress on their monstrous [[and cheaply built) Potomac Yard project that starts in the 600s. There is also a pretty good rumor that the Potomac Yards shopping center will be razed and rebuilt to accommodate a similar Pulte-like complex built on top of shopping and retail, much like what is seen in Pentagon City.

Back in the late 1990s, my agent at Arlington Realty told me that the shopping center would last about 30 year to be fully depreciated wherein, at that time, it would be replaced by mixed use residential community. An example of what they intend is the community that has rose up around Slaters Lane.