Before we get carried away with Nashville-envy, check out this rejection of modern streetcars, and the selection of a BRT line instead.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111212/NEWS0202/312120047/Study-says-rapid-buses-best-option-east-west-transit?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111212/NEWS0202/312120047/Study-says-rapid-buses-best-option-east-west-transit?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs)
http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN1828191212.PDF (http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN1828191212.PDF)
QuoteThe steering committee of the Broadway/West End Corridor Study agreed that bus rapid transit, which uses dedicated bus lanes to help commuters and other travelers move quickly and reduce congestion, is the way to go after learning that the only other feasible option, modern streetcars, would cost twice as much without substantially increasing ridership.
Great news for Nashville. Going with modern streetcars instead of heritage would make the cost rise significantly, especially if initially double tracked. Any idea on the anticipated amount of economic development that will come along with their new BRT line?
Nashville chooses BRT over streetcars and somehow that's great news for Nashville? I thought BRT was bad and streetcars were good. Am I missing something here?
I never said BRT was bad. I said it doesn't have a strong record for stimulating TOD, which it doesn't. So if your goal is to create sustainable development, then fixed transit makes more sense. If your goal is just to connect existing destinations with mass transit in general, BRT begins to make more sense. My pet peeve comes when people try and act like different transportation system alternatives can accomplish the same goals equally. Btw, check out Eugene, OR's EmX when you get the chance. It's a pretty cool BRT system for a smaller community. Also, as far as BRT goes in Jax, I'd like to see us do what Charlotte did with their Sprinter instead of what JTA is proposing.
^With that said, I don't necessarily agree with the way Nashville's consultants have structured their BRT vs. Streetcar FAQ. The answers reek of a process where one mode was already favored by the entity in charge of the studies. It reads like some of the misinformation JTA used around 2004, when they were proposing the billion dollar dedicated busway plan.
I'm too lazy to check out all the links, but the corridor they are speaking of is already "developed" and becoming even denser/more walkable. It's not like a new system of any kind will "spur" development, because it's already happening. As Lake pointed out, this is just to move people already there and moving in more efficiently along the corridor. It will likely be used for convenience predominantly by Vanderbilt students and office workers between downtown and the west end. Visitors to the area may not see a use for it as most buildings have a garage attached/underneath, and residents of West End may use it to get to events downtown or to the bars.
BTW, underneath the posted article was another article on a contemporary intown home offering views of the city.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111211/BUSINESS02/312110020/Modern-mansion-Oak-Hill-offers-striking-views?odyssey=obinsite
I'd love to see more of that happening in Jacksonville, mixing in with some of those old homes :)
I'm with Lake...there are places where BRT makes the most sense....and in Jax that is primarily out to the beach, where we don't have rail infrastructure....now, if we can't make rail work on the CSX and FEC lines, then other BRT routes might also make sense here...but we should be trying rail first.
Take note that the image in the article (front page of report) seems to imply this will be full BRT, with dedicated lanes, raised platforms, articulated buses, etc...what we are doing here in jax. is BRT lite...call it what you will (especially if that allows for Federal funding) but it is nothing more than enhanced local bus service.
Also note that the report considered light rail as well as modern streetcars....streetcars today generally work connecting neighborhoods togetrher, with lines no more than about 5 miles in length....which fits perfectly for cnnecting Riverside through downtown up to Springfield
^Good catch. As mentioned there are several forms of BRT, which can make the technology pretty confusing for the average person. If anyone wants to see what is being proposed for Jax, Kansas City's Max is a great example. Here are a few images I took of the Max last year:
BRT station, which is really an enhanced bus shelter.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Kansas-City-August-2010/P1380351/968131004_HanR7-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Kansas-City-August-2010/P1380444/968121730_rPAmS-M.jpg)
BRT buses traveling in lanes with regular traffic
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Kansas-City-August-2010/P1380450/968122049_Va5B6-M.jpg)
Branded buses. Branding is simply a different name and color scheme from the rest of the bus routes in the city. In JTA's BRT plans, the cost of new buses are the lion's share of the expense.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Kansas-City-August-2010/P1380631/968125607_u4qEX-M.jpg)
Dedicated lanes if the width of the street allows it. In short, a few streets will lose some shoulders and parallel parking. You can find an example of JTA's dedicated lanes on Blanding, where the parallel parking stalls used to be.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Kansas-City-August-2010/P1380691/968126449_nSATd-M.jpg)
Nashville already has "BRT Lite" in one corridor. The existing Nashville BRT buses are articulated, with wheel skirts.
The "BRT lite" in Nashville is currently along Gallatin RD/Pike was paid for by mostly federal dollars. It is basically a test to potentially extend it further up Gallatin.
Now, while I'm not the most thrilled over the corridor being BRT, I see it as a launching pad. I believe this is just the start and eventually West End/Broadway will see light rail, while it is a relatively dense street it has yet to reach what I believe is enough density/population to make light rail worthwhile.
I hightly doubt it will ever be converted to rail. Ottawa has the most successful BRT system in North America and they haven't converted it to rail. That was one the flaws with our originally proposed BRT, saying it could be converted to rail, it just will not happen.
I was really expecting that Nashville would have chosen LRT or streetcars for their Broadway West End corridor. The BRT outcome is a big surprise to me.
In that corridor that already has BRT, commuter rail has been stymied by a heavy volume of rail freight traffic.
Quote from: simms3 on December 12, 2011, 10:57:33 PM
BTW, underneath the posted article was another article on a contemporary intown home offering views of the city.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111211/BUSINESS02/312110020/Modern-mansion-Oak-Hill-offers-striking-views?odyssey=obinsite
I'd love to see more of that happening in Jacksonville, mixing in with some of those old homes :)
It may not be far from the center of Nashville, but that Oak Hill house is in a remote area.
In Jacksonville it would be like being on an island in the middle of the St. Johns River.
^^^Maybe so, but I would still love to see contemporary homes like that mixed in with the older houses. I have seen stuff like that in Nashville and of course contemporary is mixed in everywhere with old here in Atlanta. It works and promotes new construction and more people.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on December 12, 2011, 10:06:19 PM
Nashville chooses BRT over streetcars and somehow that's great news for Nashville? I thought BRT was bad and streetcars were good. Am I missing something here?
I thought so too! I thought that MJ's (not everyone) overwhelming sentiment was that streetcars where the holy grail, and buses were despised; Although, this 'hot button topic' thread isn't exactly bustling with comments, so I'm guessing that many are taking the 'If you don't got nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all' approach.
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.
Quote from: I-10east on December 13, 2011, 08:17:21 PM
Quote from: Dashing Dan on December 12, 2011, 10:06:19 PM
Nashville chooses BRT over streetcars and somehow that's great news for Nashville? I thought BRT was bad and streetcars were good. Am I missing something here?
I thought so too! I thought that MJ's (not everyone) overwhelming sentiment was that streetcars where the holy grail, and buses were despised; Although, this 'hot button topic' thread isn't exactly bustling with comments, so I'm guessing that many are taking the 'If you don't got nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all' approach.
Buses are not despised here quite the opposite. Just don't spend the same amount of money you would on fixed rail building dedicated bus ways and call it the same. That was happening before MJ put a stop to it. Likewise don't paint a bus like a streetcar and call it the same thing or representative in any way with what fixed rail brings to the table. That is currently happening in Jax.
This site has had articles on what the JTA could do to improve it's bus service. Like Lake said what you are trying to accomplish dictates what mode of transit you should implement. If development dollars are part of what you want to bring you need fixed rail. Buses are flexible and you can move the stops any time you want so they are terrible to risk development dollars around. However if you want to invest near transit fixed rail is well fixed.
Yes, buses aren't despised. Spending more money than necessary and promoting them as providing the same quality of life benefits as rail is. Personally, I'd love for JTA to implement their BRT system like Charlotte did with their Sprinter BRT. If so, the entire thing would cost less than $5 million than $20-$25 million for each corridor.
Quote from: dougskiles on December 13, 2011, 08:27:47 PM
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.
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.
^I would feel much better about it if they did just call it enhanced service. By selling it as something it is not makes me question their integrity. It also makes me question their intention (or ability) to ever provide something that is truly RAPID.
Then there is the issue of duplication of existing service. If they want to provide enhanced bus service from the SE corridor to Kings Avenue, great. But enhanced bus service from Kings Avenue to downtown along the Skyway route? Not so great.
It will also leave people disappointed when it doesn't live up to billing.
The pushback up in Nashville has begun!
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111214/COLUMNIST0101/312140059/Gail-Kerr-Rapid-bus-isn-t-popular-least-s-an-idea?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE (http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111214/COLUMNIST0101/312140059/Gail-Kerr-Rapid-bus-isn-t-popular-least-s-an-idea?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)
I wonder why they didn't examine the new "wireless" streetcar option. Since they attributed the high capital cost of the streetcar to the electrical system.
^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. i noticed that too.
The time frame for this study was fairly short - less than one year. But it was sold as a streetcar/LRT study.
Also this corridor is prime "choice rider" territory. LRT for this corridor has been studied before.
Here is the official website for the study.
http://www.broadwaywestendstudy.com/
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?
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.
QuoteWhat 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?
Yes, although there are more subtle shades at play here as well. A friend of mine is working on the Montgomery County BRT plan, and he mentioned that BRT is a great way to get a large system up and running in a short period of time. In MoCo's case, it also helps solve a civic problem, in that while some people want the transit option, others don't want to give up the suburban lifestyle. So, BRT in this application is kind of a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution for those voters. Moreover, MoCo already has both commuter rail and DC's Metro Red Line, so BRT in this case isn't an overall transit replacement, but an addition to an already rail-covered area.
There's also significant money out there to be had, should one choose the BRT option, as advocates are trying to get an American result akin to what BRT has done in South America (where it's basically a full-on heavy rail system replacement, with density, commerce and the rest encouraged.) I think that setting those expectations at that level is entirely wrong, and why the BRT people will have an uphill battle from those over-promises. Having said that, they should make it their goal to implement a full system somewhere, with the idea that even if nothing else changes: no vast TOD push, no return to the inner city, no embrace of the row house, etc...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.
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.
^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.
Quote from: fsujax on December 14, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
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?
Quote from: AaroniusLives on December 14, 2011, 03:19:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Dashing Dan on December 14, 2011, 03:21:40 PM
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).
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteJust 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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteBecause, 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?
QuoteIt 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?)
QuoteSo - 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.)
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?
Sorry, I'm a transit nerd...totally should have been an urban planner, but alas.
Quote from: dougskiles on December 14, 2011, 02:54:16 PM
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
Quote from: dougskiles on December 14, 2011, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: fsujax on December 14, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
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
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 14, 2011, 06:21:00 PM
the previous administration was very much against rail
Why?
Was it because of this:
QuoteA 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 (http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/prospect-of-regional-transit-1255818.html)
^Lol, what does Susan Stanton think government is doing by continuing to build unsustainable highways without providing a variety of mobility options?
I don't think Susan Stanton thinks much at all. Maybe one day she will discover books.
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?:
Quote(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Maps/nashville-brt-study_area_map.jpg)
"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.â€
"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
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.
yes, but I dont think Nashville has a MetroNashville looking out for them! :-)
Nashville would benefit from something like Metro Jacksonville.
But Nashville does has a foundation-funded civic design center, and so should we.
http://www.civicdesigncenter.org/ (http://www.civicdesigncenter.org/)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on December 14, 2011, 10:39:43 PM
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.
Ock - I've been waiting for you to post on this thread. Thanks!