BRT, Rail, and New York City: A Conversation With Walter Hook

transmilenio.jpgBogotá’s TransMilenio carries 1.4 million riders per day. This bus- and bike-only transitway operates in the historic city center. Photo: Shreya Gadepalli/ITDP.

New York City made a major public commitment to Bus Rapid Transit in 2006 when, after years of discussion, the MTA and DOT put forward plans for pilot routes in each of the five boroughs. In the meantime, the city’s BRT agenda has encountered a few setbacks in Albany and made a partial breakthrough on Fordham Road, with a service that incorporates some nifty bus improvements, but not enough to merit the BRT designation.

walter_hook_headshot.jpg

Perhaps no one knows the ins and outs of BRT better than Walter Hook (right). As director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, Hook has advised cities on four continents about BRT implementation, including Jakarta’s seven-corridor network, the first full-fledged BRT system in Asia.

Streetsblog caught up with Hook — in between trips to Cape Town and Mexico City — for an email Q&A about why New York City needs Bus Rapid Transit, common misconceptions of BRT in America, and what will make BRT succeed here. This is the first of four installments.

Streetsblog: Is BRT the right mode for New York City at this moment in time? A lot of folks think that BRT is no substitute for light rail or a subway system. How would you pitch the idea of BRT to New Yorkers?

Walter Hook: I was in Philadelphia a few months back, which is a real rail and streetcar-loving town, and I took a lot of heat for suggesting BRT had a place in U.S. cities like New York and Philadelphia, particularly from my friends in the sustainable transportation advocacy community. I understand why a lot of folks in the U.S. see BRT as some sort of marketing trick to pawn off low-quality bus improvements as mass transportation. I think it’s because we don’t really have a full BRT system in the U.S. Not very many people have been to Bogotá, or Curitiba, or Pereira or Guayaquil to see the best BRT systems. These are not exactly tourist Meccas.

The Second Avenue Subway would be great, it’s needed, it would have higher demand than almost any other metro line in the country. But will it happen?

The U.S. has a BRT program, and it has brought real improvements, and it’s using some elements of the Latin American BRT systems, but most of them fall short. There is no quality control or mechanism to protect the ‘BRT’ brand, so some fairly modest bus improvements are calling themselves BRT, not only in the U.S. but all over the world.

New York City already has the most extensive subway network in the U.S., and one of the most extensive in the world. Whatever BRT is built, it will need to fit seamlessly into that network. Some subway lines are extremely crowded — at capacity despite a very high fare by international standards. The 4, 5, and 6, the L — these trains are packed.  I don’t know why Japanese and Chinese cities can roll out 10 miles of new subway line a year, and the richest city in the world has been trying and failing to build the Second Avenue Subway since the 1960s. But I’ve lived in this town a long time, and I am skeptical. The optimists are telling us that we will have a Second Avenue Subway between 125th Street and 63rd Street by 2015 and only after we spend $4 to $5 billion. So this means we are probably talking about 2018 or 2020, and $10 billion. The Second Avenue Subway would be great, it’s needed, it would have higher demand than almost any other metro line in the country. At those volumes, metros are often a good investment. But will it happen?

Plus, the MTA needs something like an additional $20 billion just to bring the existing system into a state of good repair. If we only talk rail, that puts any mass transit improvements to my neighborhood — Brooklyn adjacent to the hole in the ground that may one day be Atlantic Yards — off the radar for two decades, even though they are talking about introducing Manhattan-level densities into my neighborhood in the next few years.

SB: Couldn’t light rail get the job done in many cases?

WH: I don’t see light rail as much of a solution to this problem. Light rail has all the problems of a BRT system with most of the cost of a metro system. Surface light rail in Manhattan — how much would it cost? The Denver light rail line was estimated to cost from $40 to $75 million per mile, and naturally it’s proving to be like double that. That’s less than the billions per mile the subway would cost. But the best BRT system in the world, Bogotá’s TransMilenio, when the complete reconstruction of the entire road into a boulevard with bike lanes and beautiful trees is all included in the price, cost about $20 million a mile. It might cost more than this in the U.S., but all things being equal (high quality of all elements, dedicated transitways, specially configured low-noise, low-emissions vehicles, etc.) it’s going to be a whole lot cheaper than LRT.

Very good BRT systems have been built for as little as $8 million a mile. With the same capital budget, we could build more than twice as much proper BRT as light rail, probably 5 to 10 times more, with no loss in the quality of service, the capacity, or the speed. Even counting the contribution to total life cycle costs of operating and maintenance costs, BRT is a bargain, something all New Yorkers love.

The engineering for light rail is more complicated: You need electric conduit, ugly overhead wires, tracks — not to mention rail yards that are nearly impossible to locate in any dense city. What is the operational advantage? If light rail does not have an exclusive right of way, it is even more stuck in traffic congestion and much more accident prone than local bus services. Capacity? The capacity of a light rail system is no higher than a BRT system. The law of physics pertaining to only one object occupying a given space at one time applies to LRT just as it does to buses. The limitations of block lengths and traffic signals apply to both equally. The capacity of LRT with only two tracks (almost universal) is significantly lower than the many BRT systems that have passing lanes at the stations supporting express services just like on the subway here.

Very good BRT systems have been built for as little as $8 million a mile. With the same capital budget, we could build more than twice as much proper BRT as light rail. BRT is a bargain, something all New Yorkers love.

BRT also has the very distinct advantage that the bus can leave an exclusive busway and enter normal traffic on any road. A light rail line can only go where the tracks are built (and cannot go around an LRT vehicle that is stopped because it just hit a double-parked truck), so network connectivity and reliability are always going to be a bigger issue.

There is one circumstance that I have discovered where light rail might have a higher capacity. If a light rail station has all the same features as a BRT system, including pre-paid boarding from stations with platforms level with the vehicle floor, and there is only one exclusive lane available (no space for a passing lane at the station), so express services are impossible, and the LRT has an ultra-modern signaling system like they have in Zurich, it might be possible to reach capacities of about 20,000 passengers per direction during a single peak hour using LRT, while a BRT with the exact same configuration would only be able to reliably move about 15,000 at a similar speed. But there are almost no corridors in the United States with transit demand above 15,000 at the peak hour per direction that do not currently have a metro or subway line in them, so ultimately, the preference for light rail over a proper BRT system is mostly aesthetics and ignorance of the technical capabilities of a well-planned and implemented BRT system.

mexico_city_BRT_station_1.jpgIn Mexico City, MetroBus has enhanced perceptions of surface transit. Photo: Shreya Gadepalli/ITDP.

Like in many places, people in the U.S. associate buses with people of lower social status. Where there has been significant money available for public transport, it is put into core-commuter focused rail transit lines that usually provide disproportionate benefits to the upper middle classes, while the poor — who make much higher use of transit for all their travel — have much less invested in the bus services that they need. Interestingly enough, in Mexico City — where there is a full featured, real BRT system — the rich are willing to take the BRT, but they won’t take the metro, which has more crime and is rapidly deteriorating — the same historic phenomenon as the U.S. but in reverse!

Of course, you can mess up a BRT system, and Boston’s Silver Line proved that you could waste almost as much money on BRT as you can on a rail system. Many of the BRT systems we’ve worked on are nowhere near as good as TransMilenio. For mainly political reasons, the risk of BRT being something far from optimal is pretty big, even here in New York City.

It’s important to the world that New York City doesn’t just build some low-quality bus improvement and call it BRT. This could really damage the already poor reputation of BRT as a serious mass transit option in the U.S. But what if New York were to hit it out of the park, with something amazing? The rest of the world expects no less from the greatest city in the world.

  • gecko

    #99 Mark Walker, “I have absolutely no doubt that bikes are more desirable and efficient road users than cars, in that they weigh less and cause less damage to the road. But even if not a single ounce of humanity or vehicle travels over a road, the weather will still destroy it. And the peak oil scenario makes it likely that the constant repaving of roads may not be possible, on the current scale, in the future, because it requires vast amounts of fossil fuel both for the road surface and for the diesel-powered machinery required by the task. Thus the need for rail, which can run off any form of energy, and requires less maintenance than asphalt.”

    Response:
    Proposed hybrid human-electric agile monorail systems address exactly what you are talking about. This will likely start out essentially as an advanced public bicycle system using hybrid human-electric recumbent vehicles with real seats suitable for the broadest spectrum of the population including those who require wheelchairs.

  • gecko

    #96 Mark Walker, “The belief that a single mode of transport can replace all others is mistaken. This is true many times over in the richly varied terrain of New York. Despite the many benefits of biking to both the biker and those who share the same environment, there are limits to what biking can do for many of us — especially for vulnerable people like the elderly, small children, the disabled, and anyone who is not as physically strong as you are. Please examine your conscience: Why have you so little compassion for the weak?”

    Response:
    Again, this will provide great transportation for the broadest spectrum of the population including the weak.

    You are challenged to provide better more practical, convenient, easy-to-use transportation than the folding recumbent tricycle — with an electric motor assist — on the “Ideal Vehicles” wiki; especially, those that can run automatically mechanically and electronically on monorail systems designed to be the new mass transit systems. Current transit systems do not even come close to the potential accessibility (for the disabled, elderly, mothers with young children) of these new systems.

    http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/zero-vmt

  • Gecko, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful responses. Much of what you describe seems both practical and, to my mind, beautiful. I feel that a spirited defense of transit is sometimes necessary, unless the poster is just a troll, and you clearly are on the side of the angels. I always follow your posts with interest. I hope bikers, walkers, and transit users can continue to find common ground.

  • gecko

    #96 Mark Walker, “I don’t spend my time trying to undermine your right to ride a bike. So why do you spend your time arguing for the destruction of the transit system on which millions of people in this city depend?”

    Response:
    I am not trying to undermine anyone’s rights. My goal is help show how people can to take control of their own lives instead of waiting for someone out there take care of things for them. Mobility is a crucial part of this. What is being proposed is very accessible technology. It’s the stuff of elementary school. Practical employable skills can be taught in vocational trade schools.

    I am not are arguing for the destruction of the transit system. I am arguing for much better transit systems which will much better serve the millions of people that currently depend on transit in this city; and potentially, the billions of people globally that require good transportation and currently do not have it.

  • gecko

    #96 Mark Walker, “As I said in posts above, the convinction that a single mode of transport should be forced on everyone is a form of narcissism, and a terribly destructive one. This, intentionally or not, is the agenda you are pushing when you attack mass transit. Not everyone wishes to use a private vehicle to traverse vastly expensive pavement. That’s urban reality. Deal with it.”

    Response:
    It must be a miniscule number of people who are “forced” to use cell phones.

    As said before: If we designed cell phones the way we design transit we’d have to carry them around in backpacks.

    Current transit systems are local monologies because they are extremely difficult to build, modify, complex engineering, etc. Proposed hybrid human-electric agile monorails will be a lot easier to build and likely suitable for commodification eliminating much of the monopolistic nature of current transit systems. It is projected that neighborhoods will have a much larger say in designing their own local systems and it is likely that some will build them themselves once a transferable replicable model has been created most likely the outcome of a major industrial product design effort.

  • Kaja

    > Yeah, I still don’t understand why Kunstler lives in a house with a Walk Score of zero.

    Incidentally, I lived in Kunstler’s neighborhood for years; unless I have the spot actually wrong, that walk score is totally worthless. Saratoga Springs is perhaps the only Upstate NY communities in which you truly don’t need a car.

  • I googled ‘Walk Score’, punched in my former Saratoga Springs address, and got an 85. I believe Kunstler is less than two blocks from where I used to live.

  • garyg

    As I said in posts above, the convinction that a single mode of transport should be forced on everyone is a form of narcissism, and a terribly destructive one. This, intentionally or not, is the agenda you are pushing when you attack mass transit.

    I don’t believe a single mode of transport should be forced on everyone. I also don’t believe that people who don’t use mass transit should be forced to massively subsidize the cost of providing mass transit for people who do use it. If you want to use mass transit instead of driving or biking or whatever else it may be, fine. But don’t try to force me to pay for it.

  • garyg

    Mark Walker,

    1) Electric rail is highly sustainable. It does not require maintenance of pavements, and can be powered by anything that can be converted into electricity.

    Urban rail transit is generally, though not always, more energy-efficient per passenger-mile than passenger cars in terms of operating energy. But constructing urban rail systems uses vast amounts of energy and is hugely expensive. The Second Avenue subway line in New York is now expected to cost over $2 billion per mile. The recently-opened light rail line in Phoenix cost about $70 million per mile. Railtrack, stations, vehicles, power distribution equipment (e.g., overhead wires), signalling equipment, etc. all incur continuing maintenance and repair costs. Railtrack has a useful lifespan of about 30 years before it needs hugely expensive “rehabilitation.” The Washington Metro, the Chicago CTA, and San Francisco’s BART each expect to spend about $10 billion over the next decade on rehabilitation expenses.

    Because rail is so expensive, there are very few urban travel routes where it is economically competitive with buses. Subways are competitive only in very dense urban cores and travel corridors. Subway travel in the United States is dominated by just a single system – the New York subway. Light rail is competitive in only a few more places than subways. That is why light rail provides only about 4% of total passenger-miles of transit in the United States. For the vast majority of routes where transit could be a viable alternative to cars at all, the only viable form of transit is buses.

  • Kaja, I don’t know for sure where Kunstler lives. I was basing my comment on this listing. If it’s false, then my comment is invalid.

  • gecko

    Regarding BRT, light rail, and current developments, it is seems that the GM-Segway PUMA would be a much better investment at about $600 million for 100,000 vehicles and broad implementation of similar hybrid human-electric vehicles would be even better.

    Since the Paris Velib system averages about 10 to 12 rides per bike daily, a PUMA-based transit system based on 100,000 vehicles would provide over 1 million rides daily.

  • gecko

    It might not be too much of a stretch to imagine one million (or less) of the GM-Segway PUMA-like vehicles providing mass transit for New York City at an initial one-time cost of about half the annual MTA $9 billion cash outlay.

  • gecko

    . . . and, if they were made locally it would likely cost a lot less and be a lot better.

  • It is actually quite a stretch to imagine one million new private vehicles being added to New York City’s streets. And calling it “mass transit” is a stretch worthy of an Olympic acrobat.

  • gecko

    Replacing existing vehicles might be a better way of putting it. And, since a subway train moves about 1,100 people, and the Paris Velib public system averages 10 to 12 trips per day, 100,000 vehicles making a million trips a day would definitely be mass transit, not to mention a system that is scaled up to use one million vehicles.

    Without looking up the statistics, there are well over 100 million cars in this country doing something. This sounds pretty massive to me. Luckily, they can’t all fit in New York City.

  • BRT is Build Roads Today

    Many “BRT” projects are just a way to get additional highway and freeway lanes built. Then no bus service materializes.

    So it is an effective method of sucking up “transit” money and miraculously changing it into more freeways, highways and lanes for cars!

    All the state Dept. of Transportation are doing it with the collusion of local public works and road authorities. It is a wonderful
    way to do the same old s…

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

BRT and New York City, Part 4: Getting It Right

|
What BRT might look like on First or Second Avenue. Photosim by Carly Clark/Livable Streets Initiative. We conclude our discussion with ITDP director Walter Hook with a look at potential BRT configurations. In yesterday’s installment, Hook noted that the best BRT systems incorporate both local and express services within exclusive busways, which requires three lanes […]
STREETSBLOG USA

American BRT: A Rapid Bus Network Expands in Las Vegas

|
Last month the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy released its report, “Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit” [PDF], which proposed a LEED-like rating system for bus rapid transit projects and laid out a strategy for American cities to build systems as good as the world’s best BRT. While more than 20 American bus […]
STREETSBLOG USA

New Evidence That Bus Rapid Transit Done Right Spurs Development

|
More American cities are considering bus rapid transit, or BRT, as a cost-effective method to expand and improve transit. One of the knocks against BRT, as opposed to rail, is that it supposedly doesn’t affect development patterns. But a new study [PDF] by Arthur C. Nelson of the University of Arizona and released by Transportation for America finds that BRT lines can indeed […]