Urban Land Institute NOT sold on BRT

[dougskiles]

It really begs the question - at what point do you pause to look at past decisions and recognize perhaps the path you are taking is not the best solution?

The response we hear repeatedly from JTA about BRT is that "we've already spent so much money designing this system, we MUST continue."  In spite of increasing evidence that BRT is not a substitute for rail and does not bring the same economic development.

An excerpt from Urban Land Institute's panel on TOD:

Is there a role for bus rapid transit?

Leinberger: For both commuter rail and bus rapid transit, we don’t yet have documented evidence that they create economic development around transit stations. We do have proof that streetcars, heavy rail, and light rail do. Ultimately, the goal of building transportation, such as rail transit, is economic development; the means is moving people. We generally get the means and ends mixed up in deciding to build rail transit.

Sleeper: I’m not aware of any places where bus rapid transit has had the same impact as rail transit. There’s a certainty with a rail system in front of a project: people know that that rail line isn’t likely to be moved. That may not be the case with bus rapid transit.

Cigna: The fear with BRT is a lack of permanency. If I’m going to develop around a transit stop, I want to be assured that that the transit stop won’t leave. I think BRT can work, because it’s much more cost-effective, but the buses need a dedicated line. Maybe BRT can be a precursor to actually putting in rail: it can prove there is substantial ridership. But people still want to come to a platform and board a vehicle; they are less interested in buses that have to travel neighborhood streets.

Read the entire article here:
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2012/Aug/ul/NyrenTransit

[thelakelander]

There's also no evidence that this statement is true:

I think BRT can work, because it’s much more cost-effective, but the buses need a dedicated line.

Unless you're taking existing lanes and reserving them for buses, building dedicated lanes from scratch will cost you just as much as building LRT from scratch.

Maybe BRT can be a precursor to actually putting in rail: it can prove there is substantial ridership.

They are two different animals and this is where BRT proponents screw up.  Stop attempting to compare and have it compete with fixed transit.  It has a place and role but that role isn't spurring economic development.  Instead, it should complement fixed transit spines by feeding riders from various outlying neighborhoods and major destinations into fixed transit spines.  LA's Orange Line BRT does this by feed suburban riders into the Red Line (subway).

[Captain Zissou]

This is where the private sector and the public sector differ.  In the private sector, mounting evidence that something will not be successful usually results in a change of course, regardless of the sunk cost.  In the public sector, we just keep driving the bus off the cliff despite the warning signs.