Discussing Mass Transit Part VI - To BRT or not to BRT?

October 8th, 2008 at 09:04am Common Sense Alliance 1530

The term “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT) is probably best understood as a menu of potential mass transit features rather than as a complete package or a particular system.  Some of these features are straightforward efficiency improvements that can be applied to any bus system or route.  A separate dedicated buslane is one major feature which, by itself, defines a bus route as BRT, but on the other hand many systems identified as BRT operate in HOV lanes or mixed traffic.  For these and other reasons, analyzing another city’s BRT system to get some idea of the performance we can expect in our area is extremely tricky, of not impossible.

Websites devoted to BRT are understandably very positive, and one chosen at random, the “BRT Information Clearinghouse” is no exception.  However, applying the information to local conditions is a real challenge.  Statistics claiming that BRT routes can provide travel time improvements over existing bus service of 1 to 3 minutes per mile could mean that people traveling the length of the valley would arrive before they leave.  Time-travel bus service, anyone?

For a less whimsical example, proponents of the upcoming valley-wide vote on BRT could quote the Clearinghouse claim from Houston that “up to 72” percent of new riders “were diverted from automobiles”.  But then again, Boston reports “Prior Mode - Auto” as accounting for only 4 percent of new riders.  Neither percentage means much of anything without first learning a long list of other factors, so lesson one is to beware of simplistic statistics.

One of the big tests of the current $650,000 BRT planning process will be whether the final proposal contains clear, meaningful, and relevant statistical information which will allow the public and elected officials to make informed choices.  The past record is not encouraging.  A report produced for RFTA in 2003, which was also concerned with a BRT system along the Highway 82 corridor, was extremely opaque.  An exchange of several questions and answers with study authors was required to finally extract the information that an impossibly high increase in corridor bus ridership was being predicted.

One item from the BRT Clearinghouse which probably is relevant to this valley is the observation that travel time-savings are “greatest where the previous bus routes experienced major congestion.”  However (and please provide a correction if you have any other example), Aspen is the only known instance where major congestion has purposely been preserved in order to create the rationale for a separate dedicated buslane.  It is doubtful that voters will forever accept the status quo at the Entrance to Aspen, so estimates of travel time advantages with a BRT system should not be based on this artificial condition.

Another test of the credibility of the upcoming push for voter approval will be the extent to which voters are fully informed that this first round of tax increases is only the beginning.  On this point, we have reason for optimism.  Jacque Whitsitt, RFTA board member and leader of the campaign to approve BRT Phase One, was the source of the suggestion to call this step Phase One, in large part because both she and other board members felt that the full BRT long range plan will be more attractive to voters than just this first bite.  So, the “in for a dime, in for a dollar” aspect of the current proposal promises to be front and center in their campaign, and that is a good thing.

If both the tax increase and a federal grant are secured, anywhere from $4 to $7 million each will be spent for bus stations in Basalt, El Jebel, and Brush Creek, as part of a total capital budget of $61.24 million.  The really big ticket items that will be put off until a later phase are mostly related to locations where substantial parking will be added.

The $25 million parking facility planned for the Aspen airport area can’t be expected to fill up voluntarily, which brings us to the part of the plan for the entrance called “congestion pricing”.  Congestion pricing is a slightly too sophisticated term which means there will be a toll charged to enter Aspen.  In a reprise of the buslane situation, Aspen may be the only community which has ever purposely created congestion so that they can then charge a fee to “fix” it.

Perhaps the single biggest open question regarding the BRT proposal is whether ridership projections used to justify the expansion will be dependent on a toll that will never be charged.  Voters will likely choose to eliminate congestion by fixing the highway, so the need for additional bus service should be evaluated according to reasonable expectations of the ridership that can be achieved with the other features of a BRT system, not separate dedicated buslanes.             

Next: Part VII

Which BRT features make sense?

Entry Filed under: Transportation, Basalt, Snowmass, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, Aspen, El Jebel, Pitkin County, Rifle, Eagle County