Thank god for the recession, pt. II (BRT this time)
David Nebenzahl
II), it looks as if AC Transit will be forced to give up their grandiose
and ill-conceived plans for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Ironically, their
plans to shift BRT funds to their operating budget may save some routes
from planned service cuts (hey--it's a win-win!). Couple of articles:
http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-10-01/article/33833
The AC Transit Board of Directors took a step back from its signature
Bus Rapid Transit project last week. But just how big a step back is
yet to be determined.
At an unusual and hastily scheduled Friday night meeting, the board
unanimously approved General Manager Rick Fernandez�s proposal to
request a shift of funds from the BRT project to AC Transit�s
operating budget.
The funds�-already authorized for BRT by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission�-would be used to stave off a portion of AC
Transit�s pending personnel layoffs and service cuts.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/acorn_foresaw_the_foreclosure_crisis_in_2001/Content?oid=1203397
(scroll down to near end of page)
Ironically, AC Transit General Manager Rick Fernandez, one of the
biggest backers of BRT over the years, recommended asking for the
$80.6 million fund transfer right away. Fernandez warned at the
meeting that MTC staff probably would not approve of the $35 million
transfer without the other $45.6 million, because it would only
solve AC Transit's financial problems for three years and MTC wants
the agency to have a longer plan for fiscal stability. But AC Transit
board members were hesitant about requesting both fund transfers
immediately because it likely would spell the end of BRT � a project
the board has been pushing for the past decade.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Jym Dyer
> As a result of the "economic downturn" (booster-speak for
> Depression II), it looks as if AC Transit will be forced to
> give up their grandiose and ill-conceived plans for Bus Rapid
> Transit (BRT).
=v= Ditto for the ill-conceived plans for BRT in San Francisco:
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/05/is-the-geary-brt-project-in-jeopardy/
Unfortunately, economic downturn doesn't address the underlying
problem of short-term thinking that promotes BRT over LRT.
<_Jym_>
David Nebenzahl
[note missing attribution]
>> As a result of the "economic downturn" (booster-speak for
>> Depression II), it looks as if AC Transit will be forced to
>> give up their grandiose and ill-conceived plans for Bus Rapid
>> Transit (BRT).
>
> =v= Ditto for the ill-conceived plans for BRT in San Francisco:
>
> http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/05/is-the-geary-brt-project-in-jeopardy/
Except that BRT would seem to be arguably more appropriate for the Geary
corridor than for Telegraph Avenue (certainly in Berkeley if not in
Oakland). However, I'm largely ignorant of the Geary BRT proposal and am
agnostic on it at this point.
David Kaye
>Unfortunately, economic downturn doesn't address the underlying
>problem of short-term thinking that promotes BRT over LRT.
I think it's been demonstrated in Mexico City that as long as the vehicle
looks good and runs fast people don't care if it's a streetcar or a bus.
Since buses are far cheaper to implement, what's so wrong with BRT?
The only problem I see with exclusive lanes is the abomination that is 3rd
Street LRV: the constant weaving of lanes and the blocking off of whole blocks
to parking. I mean, heck, parking is a necessity for a lot of people. When I
need to get printing done I had to park 2 blocks away from the shop before the
city finally decided to make 2 spaces available on a side street.
But BRT vs LRT? If the service looks nice and is fast people will flock to
it and it will have served its purpose.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
David Nebenzahl
> Unfortunately, economic downturn doesn't address the underlying
> problem of short-term thinking that promotes BRT over LRT.
Question: Do you *really* think that the Metro T line is better than the
15 bus line it replaced? (OK, so I changed the parameters a little: bus
vs LRT.)
Jym Dyer
[Learn how the standard-for-27-years References: header works.]
> BRT would seem to be arguably more appropriate for the
> Geary corridor than for Telegraph Avenue (certainly in
> Berkeley if not in Oakland). However, I'm largely ignorant
> of the Geary BRT proposal and am agnostic on it at this point.
=v= Existing bus service in the Geary corridor carries more
riders than the entire BART system. That much use suggests a
light rail solution at the very least. Note that the corridor
exists in its current form *because* of light rail.
=v= The proposal was sold with the standard-issue BRT slogan,
"almost as good as light rail but at a fraction of the cost."
Some of the sales pitch was also that the BRT would make the
corridor "rail-ready," which indicates that that's what people
really want.
=v= Of course that "fraction" was a lowball figure, and as the
proposal developed, all the "almost as good as light rail" and
"rail-ready" provisions were jettisoned. It's basically now
a proposal for spending millions on rebranding to achieve what
is now as an estimated 8% improvement in service.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> = David Kaye
>> economic downturn doesn't address the underlying problem
>> of short-term thinking that promotes BRT over LRT.
> Since buses are far cheaper to implement, what's so wrong
> with BRT?
=v= Cheaper to implement, more expensive to operate. It all
comes down to the energy efficiency of steel on rails versus
tires on roads. This means more spending more on fuel (and
more pollution, but short-term thinking means ignoring that).
Maintaining rails may seem to make LRT more expensive, but
what's really happening is the higher cost of maintaining
roads ends up in another department's budget (where it is
again ignored, that short-term thinking again).
> But BRT vs LRT? If the service looks nice and is fast people
> will flock to it and it will have served its purpose.
=v= Most BRT success stories within the U.S. involve usurping
existing LRT infrastructure. This certainly attracts some
ridership but not what the LRT used to provide for.
<_Jym_>