Nashville Chooses BRT Over Modern Streetcars

[Dashing Dan]

I'll take a stab at answering dougskiles' question:

With buses or streetcars, the yield to the transit operators is nearly the same but the outlay for streetcars is higher, since it includes the guideway and the power transmission infrastructure.

The additional yield from streetcars goes to landowners, not transit operators.

[thelakelander]

^Depends on the type of systems for both BRT and Streetcars, as well as the environment of the corridor under study.  For example, costs greatly vary between modern and heritage streetcars as well as dedicated busways and BRT-lite.  Also, there are several examples where fixed transit works as the cheaper option.

[dougskiles]

I am sure direction from FTA plays a role in the decision process as well. That's why if a city wants to build a streetcar it is just best they fund it locally.

So - FTA is against rail?  All kinds, or just light and streetcar?

that just by having a reliable, comprehensive, transit option connecting the sprawl is a success. Or, to put this another way, if the only thing that changed in a sprawling, suburban American metro area is that now said metro has a decent mass transit option where they didn't before, thats success. 

It sounds like not many people, however, are convinced that BRT as proposed here and other places can achieve even that level of success.  And so what we may be looking at is another 'skyway' type failure.  Not because of the system, but because the implementation never matched what it really takes to make the system worth it.

The additional yield from streetcars goes to landowners, not transit operators.

It wouldn't be that hard for the transit operator to cash in on some of that yield through TIFs and leasing commercial property at their stations (like at Kings Avenue).

[fsujax]

I wouldn't say they are against rail. I think that they are still in this experimental stage. They want to see it work and be successful in the US. There is a huge difference between "arterial" BRT and the BRT they run in South America.

[AaroniusLives]

I don't see how anyone call a system 'RAPID' when it shares space with cars.  Even if it has a dedicated lane and priority at traffic signals, it won't make it that much faster.

If it shares space with cars, it's not BRT. But if it has a dedicated, exclusive lane and signal priority, I can see that being decently quicker.

Just don't spend the same amount of money you would on fixed rail building dedicated bus ways and call it the same.

Totally agree. The options for a viable BRT implementation should be these:

• In general, for the same amount of cash as LRT, I get much more BRT.
  For the same amount of cash as one average LRT line, I get a premium-quality BRT line.
  For the same amount of cash as one average LRT line, I get two average BRT lines.
  BRT always gets exclusive lanes. If the lanes are shared, it's not BRT, it's a bus.
  For less money, time and maintenance, I can upgrade my BRT system for much less than LRT upgrades cost.
  BRT isn't an exclusive tie-down. If a line warrants LRT expansion, I'm not politically tied to BRT 'solutions.'
  BRT and LRT transit stations should be identical in terms of quality, construction and the appearance of permanence.
  A slightly upgraded bus shelter is not fit for BRT. That's 'enhanced bus,' at best.

I'd add this, because eventually BRT is going to be proposed for an entire metropolitan statistical area, so here are the rules for viable "heavy rail replacement" BRT implementation:

• In general, for the same amount of cash as HRT, I get a massive amount more BRT.
  For the same cash as an average HRT line, I get three premium BRT lines.
  For the same cash as an average HRt line, I get six average BRT lines.
  BRT always gets exclusive lanes. If the lanes are shared, it's not BRT, it's a bus.
  For less money, time and maintenance, I can upgrade my BRT system for much less than HRT upgrades cost.
  BRT isn't an exclusive tie-down. If a line warrants HRT expansion, I'm not politically tied to BRT 'solutions.'
  BRT and HRT transit stations should be identical in terms of quality, construction and the appearance of permanence.
  A slightly upgraded bus shelter is not fit for BRT. That's 'enhanced bus,' at best.

This is one of those lies that puts buses and BRT in a bad light with many people.  I don't know why transit authorities just can't be honest and call it "enhanced bus service" and stop trying to compare it with other modes.

This annoys me to no end. Miami's South Dade Busway isn't remotely BRT as envisioned by Bogota, Curtiba, Ottawa or Brisbane. That's BRT Lite. What they did in Kansas City is "Enhanced Bus," with perhaps LA and Cleveland getting close to actual BRT. Here's how I'd divide them up:

• Metro alternative, or using the BRT to create a city-wide, comprehensive transit system that meets the ridership of HRT. That's TransMilenio in Bogota.
  Commuter Rail alternative, or using the BRT to create a region-wide comprehensive transit system that meets the ridership of traditional commuter rail, like what they did in Brisbane.
  Light Rail alternative, or using the BRT to create a city-wide, comprehensive transit system that meets the ridership of LRT. LA's Orange Line, for example.
  BRT Light, or using elements of Bus Rapid Transit, such as exclusive lanes or signal priority, but not all of them together, to create a better bus experience. Miami's South Dade Busway is an example of this.
  Enhanced Bus, or taking mostly 'surface' elements of Bus Rapid Transit, like branding, glammed-up bus stations and maybe one element of the 'guts' part of the BRT package, like signal priority and time-related lane exclusivity to create a better bus experience. Kansas City has this.

It goes without saying that if BRT is more expensive than HRT or LRT, it shouldn't be considered at all (having said that, the expense should also extend to long-range thinking as well...as in what will the cost to maintain and upgrade in the future be.)

It goes without saying that in the United States, at present, LRT and HRT encourage much more TOD, and that any BRT looking to create TOD will have to be premium quality. Or, to put this another way. that BRT corridor should look like an avenue in Paris.

Because, it appears that BRT may have been the predetermined winner all along.  I say this because the majority of the FAQs focus on one form of BRT vs one form of streetcar (the most expensive) and downplays the economic impact these technologies have on the communities they penetrate.  It reads like a cut and pasted CUTR report.

Yeah, it didn't really seem as if they really investigated the Streetcar alternative at all, eh?

It sounds like not many people, however, are convinced that BRT as proposed here and other places can achieve even that level of success.  And so what we may be looking at is another 'skyway' type failure.  Not because of the system, but because the implementation never matched what it really takes to make the system worth it.

Well, looking at the transit patterns in the United States, one could easily rewrite your sentence as "It sounds like not many people, however, are convinced that MASS TRANSIT OF ANY KIND as proposed here and other places can achieve even that level of success." But that's a whole other can of worms. As for the 'skyway' comparison, there are some similarities, notably that unless the 'skyway' is expanded at considerable expense, it will always be a failure, but the failure prevents that expansion, so it's doomed, which could very well be true of BRT (it sure as hell is true of Miami's MetroFail.) However, the difference is in cost. If one line of BRT is not ridden, is deemed a failure, it's much less expensive both to construct initially (leaving aside Jax's nutso 'Logan's Run' initial BRT plan,) to expand (to prove that 'completion' of the current 'failure' is the only way to make it a 'success,') or to abandon and repurpose (BRT lanes become general traffic lanes, does the Skyway become Jax's Highline Park?)

So - FTA is against rail?  All kinds, or just light and streetcar?

No, the FTA is for rail in places where it thinks that rail will be embraced as a transit mode for the population (they're coughing out billions to expand HRT from DC to Dulles Airport as we type.) I think the FTA is wary of rail-based projects because they've been burned by them in the past (expensive systems not remotely living up to rider projections, municipalities running off with a bunch of cash without producing a system described,) as well as transit demographics in the United States painting a picture of private car ownership over all other modes. I'm sure that the FTA is well aware that LRT and HRT occupy a place more elevated than BRT or buses, in general, in the public's mind...but buses be cheaper, both to fund and to junk if the effort is wasted (revealing another Catch-22 here: in order to get people out of their cars, you need the most expensive option, even if that bet doesn't win...because so far, buses never win in the USA.)

   

[dougskiles]

Wow.  Aaronius definitely lives with that post.  I will have to study all of this tonight...

One of the negatives that any proposed BRT will have to overcome is the general feeling that bus service is so bad now, why would I expect this system to be any different?

[AaroniusLives]

Sorry, I'm a transit nerd...totally should have been an urban planner, but alas.

[tufsu1]

What is the real reason these transit agencies are drooling all over BRT?  Are they only looking at the lower initial cost (of BRT) and ignoring the higher return that you get from a rail system?

its all about FTA money...which is also why they label things as BRT that are really just enhanced bus service

[tufsu1]

I am sure direction from FTA plays a role in the decision process as well. That's why if a city wants to build a streetcar it is just best they fund it locally.

So - FTA is against rail?  All kinds, or just light and streetcar?

the previous administration was very much against rail

[dougskiles]

the previous administration was very much against rail

Why?

Was it because of this:

A tea party member, Susan Stanton, testified both on mass transit and on the "livable community" reshaping of cities that mass transit can spur. She likened them to Soviet Communist planned communities, with the government forcing a way of life on people.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/prospect-of-regional-transit-1255818.html

[thelakelander]

^Lol,  what does Susan Stanton think government is doing by continuing to build unsustainable highways without providing a variety of mobility options?

[jcjohnpaint]

I don't think Susan Stanton thinks much at all.  Maybe one day she will discover books. 

[Ocklawaha]

Whoa there pony! I was supportive of a clean, connected BRT system in Nashville until I read their official documents. Oh my God, they've been duped as bad as JTA, and are as deluded as Jacksonville was.

Here's a few jewels, look familiar anyone?:

"Corridor Study Finds Bus Rapid Transit Attracts Same Number of Riders at
Half the Cost of Streetcars
Mayor Says Now is the Time to “Move Forward Boldly” with Bus Rapid Transit

NASHVILLE, Tenn. â€" A study of the East-West corridor from Five Points in East Nashville to
White Bridge Road in West Nashville found that a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will cost
half as much to build as streetcars but still attract the same number of riders."

“A Bus Rapid Transit system with dedicated lanes and fixed stations offers all the benefits of a
modern streetcar system without the expense,” Dean said. “If you look at the cost difference
between BRT and streetcars, the choice is clear. It is also clear that doing nothing cannot be an
option.”

"The study estimates a Bus Rapid Transit system would cost $136 million to construct, less than
half the $275 million required for streetcars. The number of trips riders would make on either
system would be about the same, 4,500 average weekday trips on BRT versus 4,800 on streetcars
in the first year."

"Economic development benefits of a rapid transit system are substantial as the areas surrounding the transit stations become desirable locations for companies seeking an easy commute for their workers and ideal locations for coffee shops, condominiums and other types of development that thrive on a regular influx of riders, the report says."

I wonder, should we do the right thing and tip Nashville's politico's to the mountain of evidence we have found that refute these arguments, in many cases making them out to be bald faced lies, or let Nashville run right off the cliff with this and use them as an example of suicide by bus?

OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

I'm cool with letting Nashville deal with their own issues.  There are some smart people living in Nashville, so if the desire is there, they should figure this out on their own.  We have enough problems to deal with here.

[fsujax]

yes, but I dont think Nashville has a MetroNashville looking out for them! :-)