Well, he's probably still evil. But it is nice (and kind of funny) that Weyrich is a big fan of large-scale investments in rail. I'm not really sure that bus rapid transit is so bad as he says, when done right it can be a useful option. What I primarily fear about BRT is that we'll get into a "defining BRT down" scenario since it lacks a very clear definition.
« Biden's Got Game | Main | Desperation Strategies »
Paul Weyrich is Making Sense
10 Jun 2008 03:21 pm
Comments (15)
Reading that article was vaguely surreal. Like finding out Dick Cheney really likes the Grateful Dead or something.
I think different transit scenarios fit different cities. BRT might benefit places with goofier geography, and its a lot easier to implement in many cases. Rail IS expensive and takes a while to roll out.
Matt,
If you really want to make large scale infrastructure investments happen before you're dead and gone, you'll need to take on the environmental laws that slow large scale construction to a crawl.
Paul Weyrich's support for transit should be no surprise to anyone. He has served on amtrak's board of Director's for 6 one-year terms and was a member of the Amtrak Reform Council. Here is a link to one of his columns outlining his Amtrak experience:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/051130
While Weyrich is a strong supporter of privitization, mostly with public-private partnerships, he has been a decades lon advocate for investment in rail, especially for the creation of high-speed corridors.
By merely invoking his name several times in this comment, I have filled my office with the unmistakeable smell of sulfur. What's that they say about a stopped clock?
Paul Weyrich's support for transit should be no surprise to anyone. He has served on amtrak's board of Director's for 6 one-year terms and was a member of the Amtrak Reform Council. Here is a link to one of his columns outlining his Amtrak experience:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/051130
While Weyrich is a strong supporter of privitization, mostly with public-private partnerships, he has been a decades lon advocate for investment in rail, especially for the creation of high-speed corridors.
By merely invoking his name several times in this comment, I have filled my office with the unmistakeable smell of sulfur. What's that they say about a stopped clock?
Uh, shouldn't that be "the reason I loath BRT is that we are in a "defining down" situation from the publication of the first glossy (and totally imaginary) advertising folder"?
It's always the same story- the hypothetical calculation that buses could carry as trains, and subsequent discovery that the "BRT" you will actually get will pretty much be a regular bus with a fancy paint job.
Defining Down
There really isn't any reason a 'BRT' bus couldn't participate in a regular bus system. The obvious strength of a bus system is its flexibility. Adapting some BRT principles to an existing system (dedicated bus lanes in places, establishing a few feeder "express" buses, etc...) could provide dramatic improvement in regional transit systems if intelligently implemented. Larger projects, like a skybus, or dedicated busway might be easier to sell politically if the existing systems tease the potential. I'd like to shoot for the moon and start laying track myself, but realistically it'd be easier to fund an optimization bill in this climate. It would at least be something to build on in the right direction.
The problem with "dedicated bus lanes" is that drivers simply won't obey them. When Boston tried this, people actually *parked* in the bus lane, and the buses were consequently much slower than standard driving. In order to make "bus rapid transit" actually work, you need a completely separate right-of-way, and if you're going to do that, you might as well harness the efficiencies of light rail.
More importantly, if you want commuters to buy into your mass transit project, you have to convince them that it will be there in the long run. Light rail implies a massive commitment, while buses - even with separate bus lanes - do not. Buses can be rerouted at the whim of transit administrators, and commuters can't rely on them to get to work on time. Middle-class workers will ride light rail and they won't ride buses; that's just the way things are. And it's not going to change.
I have a soft spot in my heart for electric trolleys.
Josh G,
More importantly, if you want commuters to buy into your mass transit project, you have to convince them that it will be there in the long run. Light rail implies a massive commitment, while buses - even with separate bus lanes - do not. Buses can be rerouted at the whim of transit administrators, and commuters can't rely on them to get to work on time.
Let's see: New bus services cost vastly less than new rail services, can be set up far more quickly, can cover a far greater area, are far more likely to come close to people's homes, are far more flexible in response to changes in demand, generally have more frequent service, and can share transportation infrastructure with private vehicles.
Gee, which one sounds more likely to attract political and popular support?
It's no wonder that most people who use mass transit to commute (about 5% of total commuters) use buses, not rail. And of the minority of a minority that actually uses rail, most are riding just a single system--the New York subway.
"In order to make 'bus rapid transit' actually work, you need a completely separate right-of-way, and if you're going to do that, you might as well harness the efficiencies of light rail."
But the thing is with BRT you don't need to use a dedicated right-of-way for the whole of every route, as you need to do with light rail. Instead, you can just use the dedicated rights-of-way where congestion is an issue (e.g., in the approaches to an employment center), and mixed-use streets where congestion isn't a problem.
What this means is that light rail remains the best solution when a lot of people are going from point A to point B (or indeed many points A to many points B, provided they are all in a line). But if you are trying to collect people from a scattered set of points and then bring them to a clustered set of points (a not atypical commuting situation), and vice-versa, it can make more sense to use BRT. Again, that is because with BRT you only need to use dedicated rights-of-way as you enter or exit the approaches to this cluster, and not in the scattered parts of the routes where congestion isn't an issue.
Incidentally, you can also use such dedicated busways for emergency vehicles, something also not possible with light railways. In addition to having practical benefits, this also can help add an influential group of proponents to the set.
"Bus Rapid Transit" has developed into one of the stupidest ideas of the 21st century.
Not only is it not rapid, it also entails buying fleets of diesel buses, running on 'rubber' tires (also made from oil) as we pass through peak oil. Nothing says 'incurable stupidity' and 'impending extinction' like investing in a wasteful oil-dependent mode of transport when the price of oil is doubling every three years.
serial catowner,
First, a bus doesn't have to run on petroleum-based fuel.
Second, if that bus ends up replacing transportation needs that would otherwise end up being served by many more cars, you come out way ahead in terms of petroleum usage anyway.
DTM,
Second, if that bus ends up replacing transportation needs that would otherwise end up being served by many more cars, you come out way ahead in terms of petroleum usage anyway.
Wrong. Transit buses are less energy-efficient than cars.
Mixner,
Wrong yourself. A bus running at sufficient capacity is always more efficient than a fleet of cars carrying the same number of passengers one or two at a time, provided the bus and cars use the same technology. As I explained elsewhere, that is the result of basic physics (the fleet of cars will be carrying more non-passenger mass, and have a higher total friction load).
Comments closed June 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Bus systems can and do work in some parts of the world. Stockholm, Sweden, for example, has a wonderful bus system that complements the subway perfectly. It really depends upon two things, their existence and people actually using them. Neither are necessarily easy to accomplish in the U.S.
Posted by Bajsa | June 10, 2008 3:45 PM