The political deviance of BRT

I love looking at transit plans. And I love looking at good maps. WFRC's website satisfies about 75% of them.

But today, I need to call out an egregious failure:

This is a planned BRT, stretching from downtown Salt Lake to Sandy, a large suburb some 15 miles south. East from the FrontRunner station in Salt Lake, South along 700/900 east, and West on 9400 South, and then on 102nd south to Frontrunner. Except for this  weird little jog.

I know why--there is a relatively dense residential cluster at the 106th South Trax Station. But there is also a Trax station at 9400 South. Connecting the two Trax stations by BRT makes no sense. Connecting the (low-rise) residential makes no sense. Why not just continue west on 94th, and south along Sandy Expo Parkway? Or South along States Street to 102nd South? This routing adds miles and minutes to a BRT route...and for what?

There must be some political schenanigans going on.

Municipal funding - sales tax, property taxes and income taxes.

Utah has this curious situation where the 'host' muni gets a share of the sales tax. (Prior to which, munis did not zone for commercial, due to the traffic nuisance). Consequently, there is a bear-pit fight between munis to get commercial development, offering all sorts of inducements (taxes-breaks, infrastructure) to get the development, so they can get the taxes, to pay for the development. Prior to reading a lot of Strong Towns, I had been under the impression such a system was a local peculiarity. Regardless, I was much an advocate for it's abolition, as an inducement to sprawl.

Dan Sullivan of the 'Effective Georgism' Facebook group pointed out that this might not be the case, noting: "In Delaware, which has no general sales tax, commercial land values are exceptionally high, which means the municipality gets far more revenue from land that is zoned commercial". So even if Utah did away with sales tax rebates, munis would still engage in the same fruitless competition. Bleak.

I also commented on this to a Utah Developer, who argued for the sales tax as preferable to a property tax: a sales tax reflects the amount of business actually done, reflecting ability to pay, while a constant property tax might sink a business in a bad year. I might argue that while that's nice for the business, it's hard on the municipality--revenue goes up and down.

But recent readings suggest I may have it backwards--using sales tax may actually be kinder to the muni in the larger context. Tax assessments are also prone to all sorts of political gamesmanship, both over-assessing political opponents, and failing to re-assess. Rustbelt cities (Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit) are famous for having property value assessments that are decades out of date--some of them reaching back into the 50's. (Don't even get me started on the obscenity that is California's Prop 13).

The peculiarity of Utah having the counties assess properties, rather than cities, has never made so much sense. The county isn't (as) reliant on property taxes to fund it's operations, and so it has less incentive to 'game' the process.

I'm still uncertain about sales-tax funded transit. When the economy crashed, UTA cut service, just when demand for transit-use was surging. However, property tax assessments to fund infrastructure are political non-starters (barring concentrated examples such as local improvement districts for things like streetcars). I know of no income-tax funded transit systems, although I expect one must exist--NYC used to have a income-based 'commuter fee' funding the MTA. Cities with specialty districts (airports, convention centers, tourist meccas) are reliable about harvesting that revenue scheme through per-use fees (rather than ad valorem taxes). I've seen both hotel and rental car fees in my travels. And even, in one curious case, a district (downtown) specific sales tax on beer.

Untaxed or unfee'd, it would be reasonable to see those charges capitalized into land values. And those land values mis-assessed (under or over). So perhaps a fee or sales tax based system is preferable to a property-tax based system.

The virtue of transit

One of the things I really like about my line of work is the 'virtue' of it. Equity issues? Build more transit. Air pollution problems? Build more transit. Climate change? Build more transit. Admittedly, many of the virtues of transit are those of massification/densification/intensification in general--less stuff per persons costs less, pollutes less and uses less energy. But they are also virtues of 'mortification' and personal sacrifice - of consuming less. Support for mass transit must be based on a steadier foundation than mere virtue signalling. It has to offer an advantage over the personal automobile that elicits 'willingness to pay'. The success of mass transit requires parity with the automobile: 1) right of way is provided without cost to users/operators; 2) vehicle storage space is provided, for free, by any/all private developments, as a matter of course. Can you imagine the difference that free guideway and free vehicle storage would make for buses? Only by imagining the reverse--can you imagine the effect on automobile travel if the gas tax was actually high enough to fund the roads? Or free parking non-existent?

Medium Capacity Metro Systems

I was just reading up on Medium Capacity Metro systems, and one column listed capacity per hour as a criteria (20,000-30,000 persons per direction per hour) and it made me wonder how the UTA Trax stacks up. Years ago, a Portland planner explained the virtues of SLC's long blocks--we can run four car trains, when Portland can only run two-car trains. So, how does SLC's capacity stack up?

The Siemens S70 can hold 225 people, at crush loads. SLC can run four cars per train. And I know there are segments of the network that run trains every five minutes (where the blue, red and green lines share track), which is 12 trains per hour.  So: 4*225*12 is 10,880 persons per direction per hour. Which suggests that Trax is not at it's max, it is pretty close to it (10,000-12,000). 12000/4/225 is 13.3 trains per hour, or a train every 4.5 minutes. So Trax is (in certain sections) very close to capacity. And in sections with curves/turns (900 S to 400 S) probably at capacity, and starting to generate delays.

UTA should probably be looking at either an alternate alignment (400 west) through downtown for the green line, or a transit tunnel under the 400 south intersection.   

Bus* Definitions

Bus, express bus, BRT-lite and BRT can all be considered steps in a progression of incremental investment a transit line, gradually increasing the capacity, performance, and reliability. The fundamental goal over these improvements is to reduce the amount of time spent not moving, and increase the average speed while moving. The different steps are distinct based on the following factors:

• Right of Way

• Station Spacing

• Vehicle Characteristics

• Service Characteristics/Headway

• Intelligent Transportation Systems elements

Bu Rapid Transit

BRT is characterized by what Vuchic calls 'semi-rapid' guideway: barrier separated except at intersections, with limited sections of mixed traffic operations. BRT stations are substantial structures with passenger amenities, typically seating, off-board fare vending, trash-cans, and informational posters, capable of supporting level boarding for non-low floor vehicles. BRT vehicles may be regular or articulated vehicles with distinct appearance, either low-floor of platform-height boarding, and multiple door boarding. Service consists of regular headway throughout the day, and reliability maintained through the use of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) features. The term BRT is often misapplied to a variety of inferior systems lacking many of these characteristics. Neither buses in dedicated lanes (busways) nor buses in HOV lanes represent BRT.

Express Bus

Express buses consist typically consist of long-distances routes with widely spaced stops, characterized by high speeds and comfortable travel.  Express buses typically operate in mixed traffic conditions, with minimal semi-rapid guideway. Examples include on-highway buses which operating in bus-only lanes for part of the route, but as a regular bus in mixed traffic within the central city. Many express buses provide only commuter service, operating for a limited number of hours each day. For the purposes of comparability, a non-commuter express bus is presumed [1]. 

FTA BRT & BRT-lite

For the purposes of funding, the Federal Transit Agency has defined systems with more than 51% dedicated (semi-rapid) guideway as BRT, and bus routes sufficiently meeting the other BRT standards as ‘BRT-lite’. BRT-lite is a bus with BRT-sauce: running in mixed traffic, but with limited stops and ITS features such as queue-jumps. No guideway requirements, which means BRT-lite can have anything from 0-50%. Outcomes are hence variable. 

ITDP does a better job of scoring BRTs. 

Incremental Investment

Bus, express bus, BRT-lite and BRT can all be considered steps in a progression of incremental investment in transit routes, gradually increasing the speed, comfort, and reliability, moving it toward a Rapid Transit standard. Because most of these investments are in operations (greater frequency, extended hours) they are reversible. In contrast, fixed-guideway transit investments such as those funded by the FTA typically represent a complete package of Rapid Transit elements, all at once: Dedicated guideway, signal priority, substantial stations to speed boarding, wider stop spacing, higher frequency and longer operating hours. They also come with a required guarantee of minimum service standards, to ensure that expensive capital investments are properly used. Because all of the improvements happen once, simultaneously, rather than incrementally, fixed-guideway rapid transit projects are perceived as development catalysts, capable of inducing development and revitalizing nearby areas. Streetcars represent the apogee of such a catalyst: providing a sudden increase in property values in a limited area, potentially spurring new, denser development.

Feasibly, in combination with appropriate revisions to zoning and parking requirements, a new light rail line could result in substantial additional multi-family development. Multifamily development is characterized by lower car ownership, and higher density residential is associated with great transit use (more people nearby the transit station generates more riders). The influx of residential population could then trigger a surge in demand for nearby retail and services, leading to the re-use or redevelopment of older buildings nearby. Following the exhaustion of available space nearby, the oldest and most-run down buildings will be torn down and replaced by new development. At sufficiently high densities, the combination of residential density generates sufficient street-life to represent an attractive walkable urban center, which attracts further residential develop, and additional retail and services.  Walkable mixed-use districts are generally considered to be highly attractive to both college-age populations and college educated professionals, and makes it possible for the region to compete to attract such populations. 

In contrast, incremental development will generate an incremental response: there will be no sudden upsurge in property values, the process of re-use, rehabilitation and redevelopment will be spread out over more years, and new development generated will be at a lower intensity. Incremental investment will never make the nearby area a ‘hot’ neighborhood. Correspondingly, the feedback loop of benefits to the area will be slower, the annual return on capital lower, and the whole area less attractive to developers. 

Fixed guideway rapid transit systems also offer an opportunity to attract ‘choice’ riders to the system, who elect to ride transit out of choice, rather than lack of alternatives. A fully implemented rapid transit route is exponentially better than it’s non-rapid equivalent due to the synergy between the elements: frequency and longer operating hours. Vehicles move faster and spend less time stopped, making is possible to provide the same amount of transit service with fewer vehicles. The combination of high frequency and dedicated guideway improve the reliability of the transit route. But the improved reliability of a central rapid transit ‘spine’ makes a transfer-based transit network feasible. It becomes possible to transition from a ‘hub-and-spoke’ based network toward a ‘fishbone’ arrangement of a rapid transit spine and bus ‘ribs’. Transfer-based transit networks are more efficient than centralized hub and spoke arrangements 

Pfah. Maglev

MagLev is a lie. There are MagLev (Magnetic Levitation) trains operating. Yes, GE and a consortium build a very nice demonstration train in China. And like many infrastructure projects in China, it's a white elephant. The train was built, but no longer operates.

Someone commented elsewhere the MagLev is the Concorde of passenger trains: something extremely high tech that goes extremely fast, but costs so much that it's commercially infeasible. Infeasible even for governments, when the most rudimentary benefit-cost analysis doesn't pencil. All the perks of MagLev--the reduced maintenance costs, the higher speeds--are offset by the cost of construction. If I offer a car that costs 20% less in maintenance, and goes 20% faster, but costs twice as much, it's obviously a mad decision. Better to buy two cars. I can't imagine things are any better today, when electric motors and wind turbines spiked the price of all the expensive magnetic compounds necessary to construct such a MagLev.

Worse yet, when the real advantage of the MagLev only comes at the highest speeds. In speedometer terms, the MagLev is only better than rail when you are traveling at 80 mph. All the other speeds, it's no better.

For trains, what holds down the speed is rarely the power of the train: It's typically the curve of the track. A train track is as flat as possible, with the lowest possible grade, as that requires the least amount of power, and is the most energy efficient. When faced with a trade-off between a curve up- and-down, and a curve side-to-side, every train ever goes with the latter. And the curve of the track (measured in the radius of the curve at it's lowest point) is what affects train speed.If you've ever run a model train, the surest way to derail is to take it around the curve too fast. One car goes, and it pulls the rest of the cars off the track. So when trains go around curves, they go very slowly. And for freight, this rarely matters--grain is in no rush to get anywhere. So small, tight curves are fine.

So, for a MagLev to make sense, it would need a very straight track. Just just freight-train straight and level. As an example, CAHSR suggests (Table 3.1.1) the following minima (for comparison):

250 mph - 550'
200 mph - 440'
175 mph - 385'
150 mph - 335'
125 mph - 275'

Higher speeds demand longer curves, and hence straighter alignments. If a MagLev is going to run at higher speeds (where it competes with HSR) then it requires much straighter alignments than HSR. And much straighter alignments cost more--more bridges, more gaps cut into hills. More buildings demolished. The price of a MagLev's advantages aren't in the MagLev, they are in the cost of the alignment to really let a MagLev fly.

So building a MagLev is like owning a car that only drives well at 80 mph--unless you've got lots of roads that let you drive 80 mph, don't bother. And it's that chicken-and-the-egg relationship that drives engineers (and railfans) mad. They know if you just had both, you'd be better off. But that's the architects delusion: That you can build everything at once. The reality is that building major infrastructure takes a lot of time, and that because of that scale, it's a stop-and-go process characterized by incremental investment. Urban planners get it. Rail planners get it. Crayonistas, not so much.