Having written recent commentaries favoring streetcars and light rail
and objecting to the Bush Administration's push for so-called Bus Rapid
Transit, I have received email asking just what is wrong with Bus Rapid
Transit anyway, especially since conservative and libertarian think
tanks such as the Reason Foundation and the CATO Institute are all for
it. My correspondents are correct. I owe my readers an explanation as to
why I am against Bus Rapid Transit.
Let me count the reasons. First, as I have mentioned before, riders much
prefer rail to buses when given a choice. If the object of transit is to
get drivers to leave their cars at home, then rail is by far the better
way to go. Second, rail attracts investment. I have cited Portland's
multibillion stipulated investment but even in the smaller city of
Kenosha, Wisconsin the single two-mile-long streetcar line has attracted
a remarkable amount of investment and when a second line will go from
downtown to uptown development will be yet more pronounced. There is no
example anywhere of Bus Rapid Transit's attracting development. Riders
know that a bus route can be changed overnight. Rail has a far greater
permanence to it.
Streetcars are primarily neighborhood circulators. They stop every
couple of blocks to bring people where they want to go. Bus Rapid
Transit is more like light rail. Much of it has its own private right
away. Some lines have high-level platforms like rail so passengers use
fare machines and need not spend time paying the fare aboard the bus.
Streetcars are not designed for speed yet the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) justifies funding bus rapid transit because it is
faster. That alone shows FTA prejudice.
I mentioned that rail is more expensive to build but cheaper to operate.
However, the highly respected transit consultant, Ed Tennyson, who
served as Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation some
years ago, contends that rail does not have to be more expensive to
build.