TU BRT article - Traffic: There's too much of it, agreed?

[thelakelander]

Traffic: There's too much of it, agreed?

By TIMOTHY J. GIBBONS -- The Times-Union,
The Times-Union

Since the turn of the century, when it became evident that the area's growth would eventually turn the First Coast into a gridlocked sea of cars belching away exhaust as they sat in rush-hour traffic, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority has been looking for a solution.

What it has come up with: a Regional Transportation System - an array of options to get people out of their cars and into vehicles shared by others, be those vehicles hovercrafts on the St. Johns River, trolleys downtown or rapid buses carting workers in from the suburbs.

Now, the agency is taking steps to put the first part of that concept, a Bus Rapid Transit system, into place. The Authority has begun talking to downtown property owners - it hopes to begin buying land early next year - which would pave the way for the next-generation bus system to be rolled out in 2010.

It's an idea that has generated fierce opposition - particularly from proponents of rail-based systems and advocates of downtown development who say BRT systems have a variety of problems - but one that JTA says is vital as the area develops.

Opponents offer rail lines alternative

BRT is a transportation mode that proponents say has proven popular in large cities around the world. Often referred to as "trains on wheels," it attempts to offer service that supporters say is similar to rail but with a smaller price tag.

"The philosophy is people will ride transit if it's reliable and quicker," said Dennis Hinebaugh, director of the National BRT Institute at the University of South Florida in Tampa, explaining that bus trips usually take far longer than car trips. "If you can come close to being the speed of an automobile, that's pretty good. The problem in the past is that the bus isn't reliable."

What puts the "rapid" in BRT is removing the bus as much as possible from the normal chaos of traffic, using technology and lane design to help buses flow smoothly through intersections, for example. Such systems are also marked by using ultramodern buses - often ones that look similar to trains - and having larger, permanent stops.

Full-fledged BRT systems use dedicated lanes to segregate the buses, allow them to sail down the road past benighted car-bound commuters.

For the first phase of Jacksonville's BRT program, the agency is considering having those lanes slice down Bay Street, Adams Street or Forsyth Street, running on the pavement where parking spots now exist.

Fears of what that plan would do to a barely burgeoning downtown has galvanized opponents who instead propose a transit system that uses rail-based transportation to move people longer distances.

"If we were going to complain about it," said Daniel Herbin, a BRT opponent, "we felt we should offer an alternative."

Herbin is one of the founders of MetroJacksonville.com, a Web site that has become a locus of anti-BRT sentiment.

The alternative championed on the site: Use rail lines owned by CSX Corp. and Florida East Coast Railway to send trains between downtown and Orange Park, The Avenues mall and the proposed Shands Hospital campus on the Northside. Then, in the downtown area, use the Skyway people-mover system and trolleys to move people around the urban core rather than having mega-buses operate there.

Those rail lines would reach the densest areas of the community, the group says, and would do so in a way that fits more naturally into the city's development.

"The city grew up around the rail lines," said Ennis Davis, another MetroJacksonville.com founder. "You have to go where people are. People don't live on I-95."

The group does think the BRT has a place, though: connecting downtown and Arlington over the Mathews Bridge, a corridor where no rail lines exist.

Arguments center on cost and speed

Similarly, JTA officials say they're not opposed to rail, which they say could fit into a broader transit network down the road. The Authority has spoken with the three railroad companies that operate in Jacksonville and is working out a memorandum of understanding with each of them in order to proceed with a study of the feasibility of using their tracks.

One of the arguments JTA makes against rail-based transport is that Jacksonville doesn't have the density to support it, at least not yet.

"You have to build up the service," said Suraya Teeple, JTA's project manager for rapid transit. "You have to show you have the ridership before you can get the funding."

Dedicated BRT lanes could be turned into light rail corridors in the future, JTA says, although no city that has discussed that idea appears to have ever made such a switch, according to Dave Dobb, a transportation researcher with Light Rail Now.

Among the other arguments for BRT is that it's cheaper than rail, which not only means it can be built sooner, but that the federal government is more willing to put up matching funds for the project, since it can spread its money more widely.

"If you're looking at a very competitive situation for funds, the best choice is the low-cost alternative," said Art Guzzetti, vice president for policy at the American Public Transportation Association. "You don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. You could hold out for a full blown, more costly system and end up with nothing."

One flaw in this argument is that JTA is unwilling to attach a price tag to the BRT project, although opponents cite planning documents from the past several years that point to a $300 million to $600 million cost.

For now, JTA is just looking to spend $100 million, money set aside for transit alternatives in the Better Jacksonville Plan.

Before it can spend that money, it must get federal permission to buy the land so it can use the property as its part of a matching-grant program by the Federal Transit Administration.

With the permission, the land could be matched with $100 million from the state and $200 million from the federal government.

timothy.gibbons@jacksonville.com

(904) 359-4103

This story can be found on Jacksonville.com at http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/120907/met_223793602.shtml.

[thelakelander]

Full-fledged BRT systems use dedicated lanes to segregate the buses, allow them to sail down the road past benighted car-bound commuters.

Full-fledged BRT systems also cost a lot more than what JTA is letting on.  In fact, in many cases (Pittsburgh's West Busway, Ottawa's Transitway, Boston's Silver line, etc.), they cost more than many forms of rail, including urban commuter and light rail.

The group does think the BRT has a place, though: connecting downtown and Arlington over the Mathews Bridge, a corridor where no rail lines exist.

To provide further clarification, we don't believe its a good idea to build dedicated BRT in the middle of the Arlington Expressway.  We feel, the buses can provide quality service at a much cheaper cost to the commuter by using a lane on the existing service drives.  We also feel that BRT in general can play a much better role, by feeding riders into a rail mainline, as opposed to being the mainline itself.

One of the arguments JTA makes against rail-based transport is that Jacksonville doesn't have the density to support it, at least not yet.

"You have to build up the service," said Suraya Teeple, JTA's project manager for rapid transit. "You have to show you have the ridership before you can get the funding."

We don't have the density, but cities like Charlotte and Nashville (both more sprawled and less dense than us) do?  Density would definately be a factor if we were talking about heavy rail, but according to the US census, Jax's "urban" area has been dense enough for years and that density is only going to increase in the future.

One flaw in this argument is that JTA is unwilling to attach a price tag to the BRT project, although opponents cite planning documents from the past several years that point to a $300 million to $600 million cost.

If this thing was only going to cost $300 million in total, then our argument would not be as strong.  JTA's own Technology Assessment Report shows that dedicated busways can cost anywhere from $26 to $33 million/mile.  For a 29 mile system, this means there's a possibility this thing could cost taxpayers anywhere from $754 million up to $957 million.  This is the reason, no one on Myrtle Street wants to talk about costs.

With the permission, the land could be matched with $100 million from the state and $200 million from the federal government.

This applies to rail, as well.  Or you can just do what an increasing number of communities (from Austin to Cincinnati) are doing.  That is finding affordable solutions for quality mass transit systems that promote economic growth, integrate well with neighborhoods and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, by building them themselves, without even dealing with the federal government.  By using our smarts and taking advantage of what we already have, that $100 million set aside in BJP funding can be stretched to make something much impressive and beneficial to the community than flying buses.

[landnrailroader]

 >:(One thing that was totally overlooked in the BRT article, and which I have seen nothing about here, is the almost total rejection of "anything rail" by the Federal Transit Commission which ultimately doles out the money.  In the last 10 days, they have demanded additional justification for a rail system in Houston, whose population is considerably more than ours and where there is already several miles of very excellent, downtown light rail.  The belief there, and I believe it has merit, is that this Federal Administration has no interest in anything that does not consume a lot of oil.  We have seen efforts nearly every year over the past 7 to shut down Amtrak, and we have, with the help of mother nature lost our 3 day a week connection to the west.  I happen to be a member of a group fighting to get that back.  I would hope that we will not pursue anything until there is a regime change in DC, and to make that happen, the key is the ballot box.

Look at Nashville.  They took a lightly used rail line (like the line through Orange Park will be by the end of 2008) upgraded 30 miles of it, bought second hand equipment from Chicago Metra, refurbished that, and leased or bought 3 surplus F-40s from Amtrak and set up the Music City Star, really on the cheap.  We could do the same thing down to - Green Cove Springs because once CSX diverts freights to the "S" line, they will soon decide the "A" line is surplus and either sell it to the state, shortline it, or abandon it, although the presence of the Seminole Power Plant will probably insure that a couple of trains daily continue to use it.  The line already has TCS, which could be improved.  BRT is not the way to go except to Regency.  Having sat in eastbound traffic on JTB this past Thursday night, all the while looking at a nice median - we ought to be thinking "LIGHT RAIL" elevated on that median out to the beach, and that would probably be the most expensive leg of the system.

Jerry H. Sullivan, P.E.

[copperfiend]

Nice pub

[nikormatt]

There is a pretty good (?) response at jaxblaspheme.blogspot.com/.