Imagine That... Concerns over BRT downtown stops, off-Woodward loop

[Bham1982]

BRT, if it were actually implemented as a full-blown system along the length of Woodward, would be 1000x more useful than the upcoming toonerville trolley.

But no one around here wants transit, or a functional city. They want Disneyland. They want tourist trolleys, sports stadia, convention centers, sports bars, and casinos.

They moved the bus hub from Campus Martius to basically a back alley, and everyone was happy. They wasted the last 10 years arguing over a stadium shuttle when they should be fixing DDot. It isn't facilitating mobility, it's following the "script" of whatever's en vogue for the latest iteration of U.S.-style "urban renewal".

[iheartthed]

According to one of the guys that did the study on M1- Rail, a "full assed" BRT system on Woodward would be roughly $800 million. An LRT system on the same route would be $1.2 billion [[assuming the cost of M1-Rail would be extended across the whole route). $445 million dollar difference, but either way, it's not chump change and good luck convincing people that their taxes are going to pay for either.

Yeah, sure. So since BRT is just absolutely the least expensive option I assume that they're building the more expensive "BRT Fixed Guideway" rather than the half-assed "BRT Mixed-in Traffic." Or did they not include that nuance in the press release because all BRT is the same?

BRT Fixed Guideway

Bus Rapid Transit in a fixed guideway mimics rail while offering more flexibility to serve destinations. To the riding public, BRT looks, feels, and performs like rapid transit with service that is frequent and speedy. BRT stations designed with the unique characteristics of the community in mind often become neighborhood focal points and offer potential for transitoriented development. BRT vehicles provide smooth, quiet comfort at average speeds of up to twice those of conventional buses.


BRT Mixed-In Traffic

Bus Rapid Transit in mixed-in traffic also offers a higher performance transit option than traditional bus. BRT in mixedin traffic shares the lane with vehicular traffic on busy corridors. Low floors make for easy boarding, including for passengers with disabilities, and multiple doors cut dwell times to improve headways in high-travel corridors.


LRT

Light Rail Transit [[LRT) is a form of an electric railway system that is able to operate single or multiple cars along fixed rights-ofway at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or in streets. It is able to board and discharge passengers at station platforms or at street, track, or car-floor level and is normally powered by overhead electrical wires [[catenaries).

[nain rouge]

Light rail is working great in Minneapolis. That city is red hot. What's BRT doing for Cleveland? I'm sure you could dig up some trumped up claims from Cleveland BRT officials, but find me a regular person raving about the Cleveland BRT.

[Detroitnerd]

BRT, if it were actually implemented as a full-blown system along the length of Woodward, would be 1000x more useful than the upcoming toonerville trolley.

But no one around here wants transit, or a functional city. They want Disneyland. They want tourist trolleys, sports stadia, convention centers, sports bars, and casinos.

I actually don't disagree with you too much there. But here's where we part ways.

They moved the bus hub from Campus Martius to basically a back alley, and everyone was happy. They wasted the last 10 years arguing over a stadium shuttle when they should be fixing DDot. It isn't facilitating mobility, it's following the "script" of whatever's en vogue for the latest iteration of U.S.-style "urban renewal".

Again, good transit policy is really good development policy. It's not about "mobility." Power-chairs are about "mobility."

If you design a public transportation system that's for poor people, good luck with it driving development.

If you implement rapid transit that attracts riders of choice as well, now you're in a position to drive development. Which is presumably what we want...

[nain rouge]

BRT is only successful in the sense that now you have buses running frequently. It's amazing what that'll do for ridership.

[animatedmartian]

Yeah, sure. So since BRT is just absolutely the least expensive option I assume that they're building the more expensive "BRT Fixed Guideway" rather than the half-assed "BRT Mixed-in Traffic." Or did they not include that nuance in the press release because all BRT is the same?

[/FONT][/COLOR]

No decision has been made on whether it will be mixed in traffic or on a fixed guideway. This is just the results of the initial study.

[Bham1982]

Light rail is working great in Minneapolis. That city is red hot. What's BRT doing for Cleveland? I'm sure you could dig up some trumped up claims from Cleveland BRT officials, but find me a regular person raving about the Cleveland BRT.

The old correlation/causation fail.

Attributing the relative economic success of Minneapolis and Cleveland to whether a transit line runs on rails or tires is just a slight misuse of economic numbers.

Cleveland actually has a lot more rail than Minneapolis [[and has even heavy rail) so, using this logic, should be the far more successful metro [[in reality it's even less successful than metro Detroit).

[ghettopalmetto]

The old correlation/causation fail.

Attributing the relative economic success of Minneapolis and Cleveland to whether a transit line runs on rails or tires is just a slight misuse of economic numbers.

Cleveland actually has a lot more rail than Minneapolis [[and has even heavy rail) so, using this logic, should be the far more successful metro [[in reality it's even less successful than metro Detroit).

The anecdotal "man-on-the-street" tale is that no one likes the Euclid Avenue bus, er "rapid transit", line. Main complaint? It's too slow. That didn't stop RTA from implementing an *even cheaper* version of it on the West Shoreway [[BRT Creep, anyone?).

Cleveland has rail, but the Red Line was built along a railroad right-of-way in the 1950s [[to save money). It's kind of an odd duck, and RTA hasn't exactly pursued high-density transit-oriented development adjacent to stations. Of course, it doesn't help that Cleveland and Cuyahoga County are expected to fund all of their transit needs with no state funding, but ODOT will show up with hundreds of millions of dollars in unneeded roadway expansions. Transportation planning in Ohio is a joke.

I will, of course, allow Bham to keep thinking what he wants re: Cleveland, and let him be left stammering when he visits for the 2016 GOP Convention. Provided he remembers to renew his passport, of course.

Back to Detroit:

I think the numbers I've seen are $500 million for 110 miles of "bus rapid transit". Well, each of those sexybuses costs about $3 million. Each. [[I'm using Cleveland's numbers here).

So for $500 million, you can get 165 of those long buses. That sounds like a lot. But it works out to [[at best), buses spaced 2 miles apart in each direction, plus a number of reserve vehicles. Once you pay for vehicle storage, ticket vending machines, shelters, signage...that's even less money available for vehicles. Money for separated guideway construction is out of the question entirely at this price point, and I expect traffic signal pre-emption would be as well.

Recall that Cleveland's [[less than spectacular, 7-mile Euclid Avenue line) cost $250 million or so. SEMCOG is proposing to spend double the amount for 15 times the route miles? And it's going to function as-well or better? HA.

[iheartthed]

No decision has been made on whether it will be mixed in traffic or on a fixed guideway. This is just the results of the initial study.

Where can we see the actual cost for each mode?

[nain rouge]

Cleveland actually has a lot more rail than Minneapolis [[and has even heavy rail) so, using this logic, should be the far more successful metro [[in reality it's even less successful than metro Detroit).

If you really know what's up, tell me why light rail is failing in Cleveland.

[nain rouge]

To me, electing to go with BRT is holding up a big sign that says "I'm an also-ran metro!" It's conceding that you'll never have the transportation options of an elite metropolitan area. Even Bham's beloved Houston has light rail.

[animatedmartian]

Where can we see the actual cost for each mode?

They haven't done that part of the study yet.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip..
You can get signal pre-emptions, dedicated lanes with berms to keep out other vehicles, stations, preticketing, etc. But there's no reason you couldn't get most of that stuff without calling it BRT, and the more expensive stuff often just doesn't happen. Why? It's called "BRT creep": It means that the penny-pinching government that wants to cheap out and do a BRT system is also going to cheap out on all the other stuff that makes a BRT system rapid, so ... you get a bus system. But you spent more money on it..

"BRT creep". Cool. Creepy.

You are right that you can do most of that without calling it BRT, but I really don't get your point. BRT is not a replacement for trains. Its a different idea that has some validity. It isn't light rail nor a subway nor a monorail or PRT. It has its application.

Where?

Where money is limited. Where ridership is dispersed. Where urban leaders have alienated out-state voters.

Well that's Detroit. BRT is the right choice for us right now. In 20 years, if we behave, we can invest in rail.

[iheartthed]

They haven't done that part of the study yet.

So what you're telling me is that they just guessed that BRT was cheaper than LRT... Just because?

[dtowncitylover]

So what you're telling me is that they just guessed that BRT was cheaper than LRT... Just because?

Well I would surmise in the short term BRT is cheaper than LRT. Though for long term use and investment/development LRT would be better. But I would guess they did choose BRT over LRT just because. Because Detroit can't have rail just because.

[animatedmartian]

So what you're telling me is that they just guessed that BRT was cheaper than LRT... Just because?

In pretty much all cases, LRT is more expensive than BRT routes of the same length. Rail is more costly because of its construction method and the only way BRT can end up costing more is if the route significantly is longer.

The exact costs weren't studied yet because the actual routes and locations of the stations haven't been determined yet, nor whether it will be fixed lanes or mixed in with traffic [[as well as other possible changes that might have to occur). With so many variables there's no point in factoring costs at this point until more decisions have been made towards specific plans. But even so it's pretty unlikely that an LRT system of the same length would be cheaper because of base construction costs.

Heck, even compare M-1 Rail to this proposed BRT line. The 3 Miles of M-1 Rail costs $140 million dollars or $46 million per mile. This proposed BRT at most expensive, say $800 million dollars, would still only be $29 million per mile.

[ghettopalmetto]

In pretty much all cases, LRT is more expensive than BRT routes of the same length. Rail is more costly because of its construction method and the only way BRT can end up costing more is if the route significantly is longer.

What's your source for this? I'm amazed you're able to find such clear-cut technical conclusions, considering

THERE ISN'T A SINGLE RAPID TRANSIT BUS ROUTE IN THE UNITED STATES

so I'm having a hard time understanding when and where this direct comparison was made.

[iheartthed]

In pretty much all cases, LRT is more expensive than BRT routes of the same length. Rail is more costly because of its construction method and the only way BRT can end up costing more is if the route significantly is longer.

The exact costs weren't studied yet because the actual routes and locations of the stations haven't been determined yet, nor whether it will be fixed lanes or mixed in with traffic [[as well as other possible changes that might have to occur). With so many variables there's no point in factoring costs at this point until more decisions have been made towards specific plans. But even so it's pretty unlikely that an LRT system of the same length would be cheaper because of base construction costs.

Heck, even compare M-1 Rail to this proposed BRT line. The 3 Miles of M-1 Rail costs $140 million dollars or $46 million per mile. This proposed BRT at most expensive, say $800 million dollars, would still only be $29 million per mile.

But you told me that a BRT system would provide the same level of service for a significantly lower price. How would you know that if it hasn't been studied? Of course you can buy a few buses for less than it costs to lay rail, but just because you buy a couple of pretty buses doesn't mean you're putting in a BRT system. When you include the costs of grade separation and station construction, two things needed for rapid transit regardless of whether it's a bus or a train, then I'm sure that BRT system starts to cost much more than your senses suggest.

[animatedmartian]

What's your source for this? I'm amazed you're able to find such clear-cut technical conclusions, considering

THERE ISN'T A SINGLE RAPID TRANSIT BUS ROUTE IN THE UNITED STATES

so I'm having a hard time understanding when and where this direct comparison was made.

I got a college degree in looking at trains and buses and realizing one of them had rubber wheels. If you have asphalt already laying around, I'm pretty sure not much else is needed other than some road paint.

Anyway, if you want a direct comparison, look no further than Phoenix, Arizona.

There, they constructed 20-miles of light rail through the city at a cost of $1.4 billion dollars. They also did a study, about several years earlier, on nearly 100 miles of BRT routes that they eventually implemented which estimated a cost of $137 million dollars or about $154 million adjusted for inflation.

Buses are cheaper than trains, I don't know how much simpler that can be. If you're just going to argue BRTs don't even exist then I don't understand what your point is.

[professorscott]

One of the things that muddies up all discussions on these issues is that people generally do not understand how non-specific both the terms "light rail" and "bus rapid transit" are.

The FTA [[which pays for all of this, so gets to write the definitions) only recognizes two kinds of rail transportation in the United States. Heavy rail covers three things: Amtrak, commuter rail and subway/el systems. Absolutely everything else on steel wheels carrying people is light rail: Portland Max is light rail, the Portland Streetcar is light rail, M1 Rail is light rail. So the term "light rail" covers a huge variety of things that have widely varying operating characteristics.

Similarly, "bus rapid transit" covers a set of operating characteristics, any one of which might be present or absent in any system, and there is no minimum set of characteristics explicitly required. If you propose something, call it BRT, and you can get New Starts or Small Starts funding for it, then by golly, it's BRT.

So it is possible to build a great light rail system or an awful one, depending on what you think makes a good system; similarly, it is possible to build a great BRT system or an awful one. The fact that you, in your opinion, might think that some particular project is or isn't BRT doesn't matter; if Uncle Sugar says it is, then it is. And it may or may not be as rapid as you think it ought to be, but again this is independent of whether the thing hitting the ground is steel or rubber; the Portland Streetcar is the slowest transit system I've ever seen, I think I've been on faster escalators, but it is wildly popular and a part of what makes Portland Portland.

The two things to keep an eye on for Woodward are: first, does the proposal include enough of the operating characteristics of BRT to make it perform reasonably well, and second, does it serve the job centers and population centers it needs to serve.

Two things which it would be useful to stop arguing about are whether the Woodward project should have been light rail instead [[the answer is "maybe, even probably, but that's water under the bridge now") and whether we should have any kind of transit improvements on the M-59 corridor [[the answer is "that is as likely to happen as your kindly old professor is likely to become Pope").

Cheers! On vacation and out of pocket for the next week or so, so have a lively discussion, and drink a toast to the memory of DetroitPlanner.

[animatedmartian]

But you told me that a BRT system would provide the same level of service for a significantly lower price. How would you know that if it hasn't been studied? Of course you can buy a few buses for less than it costs to lay rail, but just because you buy a couple of pretty buses doesn't mean you're putting in a BRT system. When you include the costs of grade separation and station construction, two things needed for rapid transit regardless of whether it's a bus or a train, then I'm sure that BRT system starts to cost much more than your senses suggest.

BRT doesn't require grade separation. In a BRT system, the buses have control over the street signals and so are timed so that buses have priority through intersections.

[ghettopalmetto]

One of the things that muddies up all discussions on these issues is that people generally do not understand how non-specific both the terms "light rail" and "bus rapid transit" are.

The FTA [[which pays for all of this, so gets to write the definitions) only recognizes two kinds of rail transportation in the United States. Heavy rail covers three things: Amtrak, commuter rail and subway/el systems. Absolutely everything else on steel wheels carrying people is light rail: Portland Max is light rail, the Portland Streetcar is light rail, M1 Rail is light rail. So the term "light rail" covers a huge variety of things that have widely varying operating characteristics.

That's impossible, because subway and El systems are not allowed to operate on the same tracks as the others. Amtrak, commuter rail [[and freight railroads) fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration. Heavy rail transit vehicles [[subways, metros, els, etc) do not.

The "operating characteristics" of light rail are inherent to the vehicle and do not vary widely: steel rails, electric catenary, multiple-vehicle consists. A streetcar, however, would never *ever* be confused with "rapid transit". There are basically two levels of light rail service in the United States: light rail, and streetcar. One covers longer distances at faster speeds and is often laterally-separated from road traffic [[if not grade-separated). Streetcars are smaller, lower capacity, slower, street-running vehicles that cover a limited distance. That's it.

"Bus rapid transit", on the other hand, has become an ambiguous, fluidly-defined term that means "anything more than a regular bus". There is some sort of ideal where "bus rapid transit" is equivalent to light rail, and then an infinite number of watered-down incarnations that don't even come close. Just because a bus skips a couple stops does *not* make it "rapid transit" or "equivalent to rail" or any of that gibberish that SEMCOG is trying so desperately to sell.

Ask South Boston if the Silver Line T is "Just like rail, but cheaper!" HINT: It's neither.

Similarly, "bus rapid transit" covers a set of operating characteristics, any one of which might be present or absent in any system, and there is no minimum set of characteristics explicitly required. If you propose something, call it BRT, and you can get New Starts or Small Starts funding for it, then by golly, it's BRT.

Even if it averages less than 10 miles per hour!

The two things to keep an eye on for Woodward are: first, does the proposal include enough of the operating characteristics of BRT to make it perform reasonably well, and second, does it serve the job centers and population centers it needs to serve.

For less than $5 million / mile, what do *you* think this "system" is going to be like? That kind of money only buys varying degrees of Shitty in the transportation world. If it's not much better than a regular bus, then why not just improve the 53 Woodward DDOT bus?

[ghettopalmetto]

BRT doesn't require grade separation. In a BRT system, the buses have control over the street signals and so are timed so that buses have priority through intersections.

Care to explain why Cleveland's world-changing BRT sits at so many red lights?

[Wesley Mouch]

So what you're telling me is that they just guessed that BRT was cheaper than LRT... Just because?

IHD, get real. You think a study will give you the answer? If you need a study to get this answer, you clearly are ill-informed.

Yes. Just because. If you need more, than that -- you are an idiot, or simply tossing grenades because you have a contrary opinion.

BTW, I hope you understand that this is a discussion of capital investment -- not operating costs.

[iheartthed]

BRT doesn't require grade separation. In a BRT system, the buses have control over the street signals and so are timed so that buses have priority through intersections.

I'm pretty sure that there is no implementation of non-grade separated "BRT" anywhere in the world where a bus has not had to sit at a red light because of non-BRT system related traffic. That would technically disqualify it from being a rapid transit system. So unless they're building it to be grade separated then this is not rapid transit.

Yes, I do know that this would also disqualify an at grade rail system too. But I just want us to be on the same page that despite the misnomer of calling it "bus rapid transit", we're talking about an expensive bus system and not an actual rapid transit system.