Would bus rapid transit be a better investment than light rail? (Cleveland: rental, credit)

[somewhereoutthere15]

I have research on cities that have large bus rapid transit systems in as opposed to expansive light rail systems and it seems to deliver the desired result at a smaller expense and shorter amount of time. Instead of taking till 2032 to lay track on major thoroughfares, would it be more cost effective and time saving to simply lay concrete for electric buses? However, I can still see a light rail line going non-stop between the airport and downtown.

I want to know what everyone thinks.

[850_branded]

In theory, the whole point of Light Rail Transit is to offer people an alternative means of getting where they need to go while removing more vehicles from the road-- a problem that, as Nashville continues to grow at the exponential rate that it is, adding more buses to the roadways may only exacerbate. Again, that's in theory. That said, this is the South, where people are in extra kabli more tied to their vehicles, and nowhere near used to any kind of Transit, let alone Light Rail as is the case of North and especially the Northeast, where are these Transit networks will feel pretty much right along with the cities, rather than retroactively as will soon be the case in Nashville. The truth of the matter is, this situation should have been addressed a very long time ago, but it's reached a critical mass now. So I do give the mayor Purdue credit and choosing to address this problem now before Nashville chokes itself out on its own growth.

back to the question at hand... I don't have any facts and figures in front of me in order to offer substantiated evidence which mode of Transport would be more cost-effective, put the ultimate goal is to build for the long-term, the far future, which many of us who are alive today may not even be around to see the fruit of. That said, it has been my experience in my time on this planet that people are unwilling, generally speaking, to pay for or invest in anything that they cannot directly benefit for, either immediately, or in their lifetime. Such is the problem, I believe, facing Nashville now in regards to this Transit plan.

I know this does not directly answered the question... just offering a perspective based on what I have observed thus far here in Nashville as compared to other cities in which I have lived and visited across this country.

[somewhereoutthere15]

With bus rapid transit, there are dedicated lanes in the middle of the street for buses, equivalent to light rail tracks dedicated to trams. Concrete is cheaper to lay down than rail tracks and electric buses would be cheaper than light rail trams and would produce the same result, IMO. I think Bogota, Columbia would provide a great example.

I am not against light rail in any way and I know city leaders have probably thought through this process quite a bit, but I've learned to not underestimate a great city bus system coupled with ride sharing services.

[Shakeesha]

Light rail is the better long term solution. In the short term the city should maximize the street network by adding wide sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crosswalks, bicycle lanes (gulp), bicycle rental stations, and investing in walk/ride share initiatives. The city should also encourage developers to produce more urban development in the entire city rather than just in the core.

[jmecklenborg]

No.

The more and more that a road is modified for a busway, the less it costs to jump to putting rail in the same corridor. Rail is more expensive to build but much less expensive to run over time. The vehicles use much less power for the same weight and last much longer, usually 30 years or more. The average bus only lasts 12 years.

The Euclid Ave. BRT (The "Health Line") in Cleveland was very expensive to build because they had to rebuild the entire street, including underground utilities, in order to reconfigure it all. Then doctors at the Cleveland Clinic complained about the thing and had some of the signal priority shut off. So it's really just an incremental improvement over the conventional bus service that existed beforehand. It's really a disaster because originally a subway was planned for Euclid and it would have gotten a ton of ridership and spurred a lot of high-density development. Instead, 10 years after its construction, the Health Line buses still buzz by the same empty lots they did 10 years ago.

Pittsburgh and the San Fernando Valley have dedicated busways on former rail corridors. That's not what could be built in Nashville. There is no abandoned rail ROW awaiting a new life as a bike trail, busway, or light rail corridor.

[somewhereoutthere15]

Thanks for all of the insightful responses, everyone. I do see how only building a bus rapid system would be quicker and cheaper now, but costlier and less efficient later on. Luckily, we are getting a bit of both with the current proposed plan. We are getting a much updated electric bus system in 2019, which will see a much more user friendly service that expands service to other parts of town, adds lines going from one side of town to the next, and overall makes the city automatically much more accessible without a car. The LRT and BRT lines will sustain us far into the future.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

No.

The more and more that a road is modified for a busway, the less it costs to jump to putting rail in the same corridor. Rail is more expensive to build but much less expensive to run over time. The vehicles use much less power for the same weight and last much longer, usually 30 years or more. The average bus only lasts 12 years.

The Euclid Ave. BRT (The "Health Line") in Cleveland was very expensive to build because they had to rebuild the entire street, including underground utilities, in order to reconfigure it all. Then doctors at the Cleveland Clinic complained about the thing and had some of the signal priority shut off. So it's really just an incremental improvement over the conventional bus service that existed beforehand. It's really a disaster because originally a subway was planned for Euclid and it would have gotten a ton of ridership and spurred a lot of high-density development. Instead, 10 years after its construction, the Health Line buses still buzz by the same empty lots they did 10 years ago.

Pittsburgh and the San Fernando Valley have dedicated busways on former rail corridors. That's not what could be built in Nashville. There is no abandoned rail ROW awaiting a new life as a bike trail, busway, or light rail corridor.

Hmm...not sure where you're getting your information on Cleveland's HealthLine (BRT) and again misrepresenting the ''empty lots''. You have a hang up about Cleveland generally and apparently Euclid Avenue in particular.

Please consider BRT in Nashville. This poster is from Cincinnati which, as you can see, has issues about Cleveland, especially about its transit system.

No mention of the fact that Cleveland's Bus-Rapid Transit HealthLine has been named the best in the United States; hardly the ''disaster'' you describe.

The HealthLine runs between Cleveland's two employment hubs: downtown and to the east, University Circle. The area in-between is called MidTown. The Cleveland Clinic is located here. The doctors line this poster used is completely false. The Euclid Avenue section is seeing tons of residential and commercial development. The empty lots are a thing of the past.

Why this poster needs to misrepresent this to you Nashville folks has something to do with his mania for ''rail transit'' and will apparently lie about it by using Cleveland's award winning main BRT line.

Nashville should definitely consider Bus-Rapid Transit. BRT makes a great complement to Cleveland's rail system and, in fact, an additional BRT line (although considered ''lite'') was opened and additional ones are planned.

There is no cost comparison between building and maintaining BRT lines and building a subway.

Keep in mind that this poster has an axe to grind about Cleveland and apparently rode the HealthLine in 2009, shortly after it opened. He may want to ride it again as Euclid Avenue has indeed changed dramatically, for the better.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by somewhereoutthere15

I have research on cities that have large bus rapid transit systems in as opposed to expansive light rail systems and it seems to deliver the desired result at a smaller expense and shorter amount of time. Instead of taking till 2032 to lay track on major thoroughfares, would it be more cost effective and time saving to simply lay concrete for electric buses? However, I can still see a light rail line going non-stop between the airport and downtown.

I want to know what everyone thinks.

BRT is less expensive and would certainly make a great complement to a light-rail line between downtown and the airport.

[jetgraphics]

Why support electric traction rail?

Long story short -
* Rail (steel wheel on steel rail) has a 20:1 advantage over pneumatic tire on pavement (95% energy savings) [rolling resistance - Law of Physics]
* A single track has the carrying capacity of up to 9 lanes of superhighway. (NYC’s 4 track subway is the equivalent of 36 lanes of superhighway)
* Rail transit is the most efficient form of land transport, scalable, conducive to high density population urban development, durable, frugal, and less polluting.

BUT it takes government to transform the most efficient form into a political boondoggle, with cost overruns, delays and partisan meddling.

[somewhereoutthere15]

With Nashville getting a mix of LRT, BRT, and improved bus service on existing routes, it will be interesting to see the contrast on different corridors further into the future. The improve bus service will be the first to arrive, expected to be completed in 2019.