HOW TO REVIEW A TRANSIT PLAN

Thomas A. Rubin, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM

Preserving the American Dream ConferenceDenver, Colorado

September 20, 2014

IS GOOD.BUS

IS BAD.RAIL

Questions?

Well, perhaps a bit over-simplified …• Actually, rail, bus, roads, and just about all other

transportation modes are never good or bad, in and of themselves – they are means, tools, that are only or bad in context, which means:– How they do in furthering transportation and related goals– In comparison to other options, and/or– After the fact, compared to the project’s own stated

objectives:• Construction and/operating costs/subsidies• Ridership• Travel time• Congestion relief

Cost and Related ConsiderationsWill it Work?Is it the Best Option?Can we Afford to Build it?Can we Afford to Operate it?Will it Negatively Impact Other Transportation System

Components and/or other metropolitan objectives?Schedule – How Long to Get It Going?Risk – Financial, Political, Technical, Management?

Are the projections for capital and operating costs, ridership, revenues, construction schedule, travel time, safety, congestion impact, real estate development, urban form change CREDITABLE?

WHAT WE WILL COVER TODAY• 30,000 Foot Description of the Planning Process• Types of Plans – This presentation will focus on

“corridor plans”• Areas of Concern• Start Early• Get Organized• Get Technical Help• National Environmental Policy Act Challenges• Things to Look For – including a number of real

world, “can-you-believe-that’s?”

WHAT IS A PLANNER?A planner is …

someone who knows with absolutecertainty what a wonderful world thiswould be if only all those stupid peopleout there would just live their lives theway (s)he knows they should.

Yes, this description is very unfair to many fine, dedicated planners who are doing good work for the members of the public – but it is a very good description of many other members of the planning community and profession.

30,000 Foot Description of the Transportation Planning Process

• Randall has discussed the regional planning process• This will be at the individual transit agency level –

with an emphasis on “corridor plans” – such as those that are generally required for light rail, heavy rail, and bus rapid transit-heavy projects

• Let’s start by going through the various transit modes that someone might think are ideal for your city

TRANSIT MODES THAT GENERALLY REQUIRE CORRIDOR PLANS I

Light Rail: An electric railway that operates local service in mixed traffic with road vehicles, or has

grade crossings with roadways. The service is characterized by short trains of one to four cars and by relatively short distances between stops for local

service within a city and the immediate suburbs.

Heavy Rail: An electric railway that operates local service in exclusive right-of-way. The service is

characterized by long trains of six to eight cars or more and by relatively short distances between stops for

local service within a city and the immediate suburbs. The Nation’s traditional subway systems are classified

as heavy rail.

TRANSIT MODES THAT GENERALLY REQUIRE CORRIDOR PLANS II

Streetcar Rail: Rail systems operating routes predominantly on streets in mixed-traffic. This service typically operates with

single-car trains powered by overhead catenaries and with frequent stops.

Hybrid Rail: Rail systems primarily operating routes on the National system of railroads,

but not operating with the characteristics of commuter rail. This service typically operates light rail-type vehicles as diesel multiple-unit

trains (DMU’s).

TRANSIT MODES THAT GENERALLY REQUIRE CORRIDOR PLANS III

Commuter Rail: Rail service operating on either old freight railways, or on tracks that are shared with freight railways, Amtrak, or both. The service is characterized by relatively

long distances between stops, for service primarily connecting a central city with outlying suburbs and cities. The service may be either diesel or electric-powered and

usually has grade-crossings with roadways.

Bus Rapid Transit: Fixed-route bus systems that operate at least 50% of the service on fixed guideway. These

systems also combine passenger stations, traffic signal priority or pre-emption, low-floor vehicles or level-

platform boarding, and separate branding of the service. This is often a lower-cost alternative to light rail.

Flavors of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)• BRT has many different types• Most common is “BRT-Heavy”– Dedicated or semi-dedicated guideway with grade

crossings, usually dedicated stations, traffic signal progressions to match bus speed, limited traffic signal preference, and branding/marketing

– Logical competition to Light Rail Transit• BRT-Lite:– Similar to BRT-Heavy, but no dedicated guideway or

stations– Upgrade local bus service/compete with LRT

Flavors of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) II• Long-Haul Commuter Express– Long Trips, often 30 miles of more– From local suburban roads and/or park-and-ride lots,

then direct to freeway to destination– Few, if any, stops, along high-speed portion of route– When operated on dedicated or semi-dedicated lanes,

busways, HOV and/or HOT lanes, are the highest speed transit in existence, often far faster than drive-alone

– Due to high utilization, high fares, and other factors, farebox recovery ratios of 90% and higher are possible

– Logical competition for commuter rail – but, because you don’t have to fill a train, more frequent service

OTHER MODES COULD CAUSE ISSUES• Less common, but …• Monorail/Automated Guideway – Honolulu• Trolley Bus (electric catenary) – New systems and

extensions of existing lines rare in recent history, but, is often of interest, at least in the beginning of studies, because it is “zero emission” (not really)

• Aerial Tramway, Cable Car, Inclined Plane, and Ferryboat – with the possible exception of Ferryboat, doubtful if anyone in this room will ever run into a transit proposal for these in their areas

THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND• Do your homework – go the meetings, search the

agency website, Google™ regularly, talk to people, never stop

• Trust your gut – yes, there are a lot of technical things in these, but, if it doesn’t sound right to you, this is likely to be something to research – it may turn out that there is nothing to be of concern, but, many times, it is a citizen on the street who first notices a fatal flaw in the “big plan”

• Keep good records, keep documents, record meetings, and file them carefully

TYPES OF PLANS• I’m going to skip over, for my presentation, the

“bigger plans” because Randall has covered these:– Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTP)– Short-Range Transportation Plans (SRTP)– Transportation Improvement Plans (TIP)– Air Quality Plans

• However, when you are challenging a specific transit corridor plan, it can be best to start early in the process, before the specific corridor planning is underway

“BIG” PLANS FIRST – DON’T IGNORE• Where there are flawed corridor plans, this is often

because the overall regional plans are suboptimal:– What is the mission of transit? – Perhaps, it should be to

first provide mobility to those who are transportation-challenged due to fiscal or physical condition or age

– If an objective is to increase transit utilization, keeping fares down and improving bus service will often be far more effective than expensive guideway projects that serve only a small portion of the community

– If air quality is a concern, there is far more benefit to providing good bus service to take “junkers” off the road than trying to get yuppies out of their BMW’s

“BIG” PLANS FIRST II– If job creation and economic development are

important, than a lot more can be done by increasing bus service, and hiring people to drive and maintain vehicles who actually live in the community, than spending big bucks to buy things made in other parts of the nation – and the world

– Improving bus service means that people who are trying to get to jobs, or to buy things, or see a doctor, can do these next year, not ten or more years from now

• These types of considerations are virtually never even contemplated when doing long-term transit planning

AREAS OF CONCERN• What are the “real” agendas of the promoters?• Costs• Schedule• Ridership• Impacts on the community• Tax increase/diversion• How good are the projections?• Are the promoters gaming the process and the

public?

START EARLY• If the first you hear about a proposed light rail line

through your neighborhood, or a new tax to build it, is when the formal announcement is made, you are way behind the curve.

• Start early (admittedly, easy to say, harder to do)• If you have any contact with elected officials,

attempt to get on advisory boards – or even the transit agency board of directors

• Make contacts and keep them current; talk among yourselves, try to find someone with web skills who is willing to establish and operate a web site

GET ORGANIZED• Talk to your friends, your neighbors, your

professional and other contacts, and seek out others who may share your concerns

• Meet and discuss, including concerns, options, and how to make your feelings known

• Start thinking about ways to raise money and/or get pro bono services

• Organize• Develop an action plan, assign responsibilities, and

act

GET TECHNICAL HELP• While a lot can be done without it, there are some

things where technical help is a necessity• It is not just knowing how to evaluate a point, it is

knowing what questions to ask• Providing such assistance is one of the main

reasons why the American Dream Coalition exists• Contact ADC and we can help• Also, seek out such assistance locally, including

disgusted former employees of the agency and local university experts

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) CHALLENGES

• See the paper in the CD for details• In general, if there is major Federal capital funding,

an Environmental Impact Statement, or lower level environmental clearance document, will be required

• A NEPA challenge can slow down the project and can lead to some changes – but, if the agency wants to go ahead, it will almost never stop it entirely

• For that, you will need other legal, public/media relations, and political tactics

THINGS TO LOOK FOR• This section will get into silly and stupid things that

transit agencies and their planners, engineers, financial staff, and elected officials do, and claims they make

• All of these are real – as in, you couldn’t make these things up

• While some of these require specific technical knowledge to assess in detail, so many of these are just common sense that anyone who is willing to read the plans carefully, and think about, can identify – and then start asking about

TRANSIT IS NOT MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT THAN AUTOMOBILES – AND WILL FALL FURTHER

AND FURTHER BEHIND OVER TIME

Transit Does Not Relieve Congestion

Examples of What to Watch Out For

Cynthia Sullivan, Chair, (Seattle) Central Link (light rail system) Oversight Committee, “When this system is up and running, Northgate to SeaTac, in 2020, it will carry as many people every day as I-5 does today.”

Center for Transportation Excellence: “It would take a twelve lane freeway going in one direction to equate the same amount of capacity of one light rail line.”

Measurement MetricsNumber of Lanes or Tracks xVehicles or Trains per Hour per Lane/Track xVehicles per Train xPassengers per Vehicle =

PASSENGERS PASS A POINT x

Speed =

TRANSPORTATION WORK (Passenger Miles Index)

Passenger Carrying Capacity Modal Comparisons

..L.A. Blue Line..……..CFTE....…. Peak Peak El Monte/ NY Port

Light …Real World…. Load Trip Busway AuthorityLOS “E” ..Rail.. LOS “E” LOS “F” .Point. ..Ave.. HOV Lane Bus Term

Trains/Hour 20 12 12Cars/Train 6 2.5 2.5

Cars/Hour 2,000 120 1,800 2,100 30 30 1,218 515-779Occupancy 1.25 125 1.15 1.15 150 80 4.36 32-48

Passengers 23,187-

Past a Point 2,500 15,000 2,070 2,415 4,500 2,400 5,310 34,685

Speed

55 25 15 24 56.9

Transportation Work Index 113,850 60,375 37,500 56,700 302,166

“E” Index 1.00 .53 .33 .50 2.65

“F” Index 1.89 1.00 .62 .94 5.00

Plan Bay Area’s Transit Utilization Proposal is Unworkable

• 2010 “Percent Utilization” data points are incorrect – for “Daily,” in 2010:

• Table shows 27% for Light Rail, Actual was 33%•Table shows 27% for Heavy Rail, Actual was 36%

• The statement, “Utilization levels greater than 80 percent reflects conditions where passengers either would have difficulty in finding a seat or would have to stand during all or part their ride,” sets the bar far too high; standing loads can occur when the utilization factor is well short of 50%.•Example: The Table says that Heavy Rail (BART) morning peak period load factor is now 40% and will go to 57% in 2040 -- this would mean that BART into San Francisco in the morning peak would have 42% more passengers in each car. • It appears that the people who prepared this table, and the transit loading portions of the Plan, do not understand how transit schedules are developed, the data, or both.

So, if Speed and Time of Travel Didn’t Have Much to Do with the Modal Choice, What Did?1. MTA had spent $150 million to purchase the “Burbank

Branch” to build the San Fernando Valley East-West Subway under – and really wanted to so something with it.

2. The Warner Center Specific Plan required guideway transit as a prerequisite for any further build-out.

3. There was a very active San Fernando Valley succession movement, based in large part, on the belief that the City was sucking all the money from the Valley to spend on the other side of the hills – so the obvious solution was to spend MTA (not City) money in the Valley.

4. It is all about power – we (the elected officials) want to do this and we really don’t care about the facts – or what is good for the public, or what the public wants.

So, Now What for the Orange Line?• Several power players in the Valley, ticked off that

everyone else is getting light rail and all they got was this stinkin’ BRT, have launched an effort to convert the Orange Line to LRT

• The stated rationale is to increase capacity and increase speed; the real one is rail envy

• They refuse to understand that the limitations of the Orange Line are due to a very poor routing and cheap design, that light rail conversion would take over double the original cost of BRT – and would not increase speed or capacity without even far, far more expense on top of that

0

100

200

300

400

Wo

rkin

g W

eekd

ay R

iders

hip

(T

ho

usan

ds)

DEIS/EIR 6/83FSEIS/SEIR 9/89

MTA 4/99Actual 7/99-4/00

MTA 3/00MTA 5/00

"Actual" 7/00-1/01"Actual" FY02

Actual FY03

Projection Source/Date

376.0

260+38=298

80+45=125

59.8

60+40=10060+20=80

116.8132.4

95.1

Ridership Projections All/Segs 1 & 2Ridership Projections Segment 3

Actual Segments 1 & 2 Ridership

SCRTD/MTA RED LINERidership Projections/Actual Ridership

3/00 Projection assumed that Valley Express Bus Lines wouldNOT be cancelled, 5/00 Projection was made AFTER theselines were cancelled. Actual 7/00-1/01 was adjusted upward5,000 for MTA Sep/Oct Strike. "Actual" FY02 utilized the

now-discredited "old" MTA ridership counting methodology,Actual FY03 utilized the "new" methodology.

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Millio

ns o

f D

ollars

'81-Informal'81-Caltrans'82 -Parson-Brinkerhoff

'83-LACTC5/84-EIR11/84-LACTC CEO

6/85-LACTC7/86-LACTC O/S

89-LACTC Budget

Actual Cost

Time/Source

$125$146.6$194

$350-400

$393-561$500-600$595

$770

$877.4

$1,000+

Low Range High Range (if applicable)

LONG BEACH-LOS ANGELES BLUE LINEConstruction Cost Estimates

Source: J. Richmond, "Transportof Delight," pp. 64-65

If You Want to Increase Ridership, …• Nothing works better, or faster, or less expensively,

than:– Reducing fares– Increasing service– Improving service

• The three largest increases in transit ridership in the U.S. post-WWII have all been due, in very large part, to these factors

• New rail lines are not very associated with increases in total ridership – and often are associated with decreases

The Los Angeles Experience• For FY83-85, the Southern California Rapid Transit District fare was

reduced from $.85 to $.50 as part of effort to get the taxpayers to approve a half-cent sales tax to help build eleven rail lines – and bus ridership increased over 40%

• FY86-95, fares went up to $.85, $1.10, and $1.35, as over 60% of the available funding went to build rail lines – and ridership dropped 27%.

• FY96-07, a lawsuit and consent decree forced a reduction in fares and increase in bus service – and total ridership increased almost to the FY85 levels, most of the increase on bus

• Fare just went to $1.75 – and, despite a one-third increase in County population since 1985, mainly very poor peoples of color, ridership has not matched the FY85 peak

• There are now three half-cent transportation sales taxes in Los Angeles County – and we are a very long way from seeing those eleven rail lines in operation

You Know, There Are Some Things You Can Do With a Busway That You Just

Can’t Do With A Light Rail Line• Let’s look at a typical suburb to downtown

corridor and see what you can do with Light Rail and with a Busway

Light Rail Transit vs. BRT-Heavy• LRT has no capacity advantage over BRT – of course,

it is rare that the capacity of either would ever be an issue with a properly designed and operated system

• LRT has a minor speed advantage over LRT because trains accelerate faster than buses – but, this is very minor and may have no impact on total travel time

• BRT can offer more frequent service on a heavily traveled route, such as three minutes vs. six minutes for LRT – which is a significant difference

• BRT operating costs/subsidies are generally lower than comparable LRT operating costs/subsidies

Light Rail Transit vs. BRT-Heavy II• BRT guideway costs per mile will generally be well

under half of those of LRT• BRT guideway capital renewal and replacement

costs are generally a fraction of those of LRT• The cost of one unit of passenger capacity per year

on a bus is about half that of that on a LRV• As discussed previously, BRT offers far more

operational flexibility than LRT, particularly the ability to operate both on, and off, the guideway

With very few exceptions, if LRT is being considered, BRT should be considered

But – Do You Really Need BRT-Heavy?• You will recall from the Orange Line, that MTA

concluded that BRT-Lite would actually be significantly faster than BRT-Heavy

• I would not expect that in all situations, but, from my experience and the published literature, achieving 75-80% of the speed advantage of BRT-Heavy through low-cost features is not difficult:– Limited stops, generally ~one/mile outside of CBD– Traffic signal progressions to match bus speed– Limited traffic signal preference– Other low-cost options, such as far-side bus stops– Branding/marketing

Do You Really Need BRT-Heavy? II• BRT-Lite can almost always be implemented without

any environmental clearance requirements• It can be implemented in one-two years; time to

acquire buses and City for traffic signal treatments• Guideway cost/mile generally >10% of BRT-Heavy• Will generally reduce operating subsidies/passenger

as faster speed means more trips per bus & driver – but increased ridership will often mean more buses and operators required

• For the capital costs of one BRT-Heavy line, you can do multiple BRT-Lite ones

• Because on city streets, it is subject to traffic delay

Commuter Rail vs. Busway/HOV/HOT• The logical transit mode comparison to commuter rail

is long-haul commuter express bus• The capital costs are generally between very low and

a whole lot lower than commuter rail• Operating costs can be a fraction of that of commuter

rail• Service can be started within one to two years and is

almost infinitely scalable• Bus total travel time, speed, and quality of service are

generally comparable to superior• Bonding against HOT lane tolls can, in some cases,

pay for the entire capital cost of the HOT lanes

Commuter Rail vs. Busway/HOV/HOT II• Bus on HOV/HOT lane can be ideal, with very high

speeds• For comparable levels of ridership, bus service

provides far more frequent service• This type of bus service generally is best operated

with few stops along the express portion of route• See Increasing Mobility in Southeast Florida: A New

Approach Based on Pricing and Bus Rapid Transit; Robert W. Poole, Jr., Thomas A. Rubin, Chris Swenson, PE

http://reason.org/files/mobility_southeast_florida.pdf

COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING

COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING II• This bridge was to provide sufficient clearance to

allow large vessels to go under it – on a fixed bridge that was to replace the existing lift bridge

• That was royally screwed up, but, for our current purposes, keep in mind that key is the clearance under the bottom of the lower decks

• Light rail has fairly high static and dynamic load factors, which requires high load bearing design and materials – and this is complicated by steel-on-steel having a very low coefficient of friction, which means that rail grades are limited – to about 4%

COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING III• Pedestrian and cycle traffic, on the other hand,

particularly for this type of travel, and the anticipated level of traffic, is a very minor load, at least compared to five lanes of vehicles and two light rail tracks

• So, instead of putting the outrigger for the pedestrian and bike lanes on the Northbound bridge, why not just attach it to the lower deck of the Southbound bridge?

• (By the way, combining pedestrians and bicycles in a single pathway, as shown, with steep grades, is a very bad idea unless traffic will be so low that one wonders why it is there at all)

COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING IV• This would mean that the Northbound bridge could

be lowered in height approximately 20 feet and still provide the same clearance as the Southbound bridge – a very significant cost savings

• Also, lowering the deck height means that bridge can be much shorter horizontally – hundreds of feet on each side, which is another very significant cost savings

• … and nobody on the expert bridge design team, or any of the experts at the six government agencies, or anyone else thought of this?

COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING V• This was a terrible transportation idea for many reasons,

including:– Light rail was the wrong transit mode; a busway/HOV/ HOT

lane would have been superior in oh so many ways– Since Portland absolutely refuses to add any more freeway, or

surface street, capacity (in fact, it is actively removing/ restricting auto/truck capacity), adding capacity on the Bridge would mean that Southbound morning commuters would reach the bottleneck faster – and total trip time would change little, if at all

• This is dead for now, but no one involved has any doubt it will return – with light rail the absolute priority, added freeway capacity only tolerated to get the light rail approved

Streetcars – Why?• It is almost impossible to come up with any

transportation justification for streetcars– They are slow– The routes are short– The service is infrequent– They interfere with rubber tire traffic – including buses –

and parking– It costs far more to construct and to provide for capital

renewal and replacement and more for operations • Other than the “gee whiz” and “all the other mayors

are doing one” factors, there is almost nothing that streetcars can do that bus service can’t do better

Streetcars – Why? II• The clear alternative to streetcars is local shuttle

bus service, generally operated with smaller vehicles

• These can start service quickly, generally within a year, at little risk – particularly if it is contracted and the contractor provides the vehicles and the service base

• If the original shuttle buses routes weren’t optimal, or if something changes – like new development – it is very easy to change a shuttle bus route; you don’t want to try that with a streetcar

Streetcars – Why? III• For what is costs to implement and operate one

streetcar line or loop, you can generally operate several shuttle buses routes that will serve far more people in far more parts of the city, serve them better, and get going far faster

• The usual justification for streetcars is that they promote development – but, when you do the research, these justifications appears to be more like the by-product of the power plant of the predecessor to streetcars in American transit: the horse-powered omnibus

Capital Renewal and Replacement• One thing that you will never see in any cost analysis

of proposed new transit projects is capital renewal and replacement – the costs of replacing transit assets when they have reached the ends of their useful lives

• NOT required by Federal government• These costs are huge – for all U.S. heavy rail, the

annual costs of capital renewal and replacement is significantly larger than the costs of operating subsidies – and U.S. transit is getting further and further behind

• Next time your local transit agency is promoting an expensive new capital project, ask about this

In Conclusion• Start early• Go the meetings and read everything• Ask questions and demand answers• Trust your gut – if it doesn’t sound right, there is a

good chance it isn’t• Line up your supporters and get organized• Find and utilize technical experts and those who

have been through this before• Communicate, often and through every means• Be prepared to fight the long fight