Bus Rapid Transit Research Trip, Funding Assistance Still Needed

Later this week I’ll arrive in Cleveland — my first time in that city — I think. My 2006 bus trip to Toronto may have routed through Cleveland. I do know I’ve never explored the city.  My purpose for visiting it to ride their Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines — the HealthLine and 55-A-B-C: Cleveland State Line. We’ll spend just over 48 hours in Cleveland, our hotel is located on the HealthLine.

Cleveland has many similarities to St. Louis — such as losing more than half its peak 1950 population.  Pollution was a problem, in 1969 the Cuyahoga River caught on fire! Earlier this year, Cleveland police agreed to train officers to minimize racial bias and the use of excessive force.

A few months ago I started a GoFundMe page to raise money for this 2-day research trip to Cleveland. So far I’ve raised $200 of the $375 needed — a little more than half.

The rest of our vacation will be spent in Chicago.  There I’ll check out construction on Chicago’s first BRT line — the Loop Link:

Traffic-clogging construction has been underway for almost six months on Loop Link, the Emanuel administration’s experiment intended to speed CTA buses through downtown, yet the bus rapid transit service will be launched late this year with fewer features than originally promised, officials told the Tribune.

Even before the changes that threaten to reduce the benefits of the whole endeavor to ease congestion in the central Loop, the $32 million project was labeled “BRT Lite” by some transportation experts because its design lacked several elements that are key to helping buses replicate the service reliability of rail rapid transit. Those experts said making a strong first impression was vital to winning public backing for introducing bus rapid transit citywide. (Chicago Tribune – CTA bus rapid transit service to debut with fewer bells and whistles)

Cleveland’s HealthLine was given a 76/100 score by the Institute for Transportation & Policy Development — a Silver rating — the highest score of all BRT lines in the U.S. Other countries have higher ranked BRT systems:

Of the systems scored, 15 are classified as gold, 28 as silver, 41 as bronze, and 6 as “basic” BRT, indicating a minimum of BRT features, but not quite qualifying as best practice. Eight did not qualify as BRT. Furthermore, ITDP has identified 200 additional corridors that preliminarily meet the BRT basics.

The BRT Standard is an evaluation tool for world-class bus rapid transit based on international best practices. It is also the centerpiece of a global effort by leaders in bus rapid transit design to establish a common definition of BRT and ensure that BRT systems more uniformly deliver world-class passenger experiences, significant economic benefits, and positive environmental impacts. (ITDP)

Scores of other BRT lines in the U.S.

Bronze

• Los Angeles CA (Orange line) 65/100
• San Bernardino CA (E-Street) 63/100
• Pittsburgh PA (MLK) 56/100
• Seattle WA (SODO) 56/100
• Eugene OR (Green line) 55/100

Basic

• Pittsburgh PA (West) 51/100
• Pittsburgh PA (South) 50/100

So we have no “Gold” BRT lines, and only one “Silver”.  See the scoring criteria here, of interest to me is station spacing:

In a consistently built-up area, the distance between station stops optimizes at around 450 meters (1,476 ft.). Beyond this, more time is imposed on customers walking to stations than is saved by higher bus speeds. Below this distance, bus speeds will be reduced by more than the time saved with shorter walking distances. Thus, in keeping reasonably consistent with optimal station spacing, average distance between stations should not be below 0.3 km (0.2 mi.) or exceed 0.8 km (0.5 mi.).

Two-tenths to a half mile spacing sounds like excellent criteria to me, Cleveland’s HealthLine did this. It also got all three points for Pedestrian Access:

A BRT system could be extremely well-designed and functioning but if passengers cannot access it safely, it cannot achieve its goals. Good pedestrian access is imperative in BRT system design. Additionally, as a new BRT system is a good opportunity for street and public-space redesign, existing pedestrian environments along the corridor should be improved.

Regular posts will continue here during my vacation/research trip, plus I’ll be posting images from Cleveland & Chicago to Twitter & Facebook. Would love to raise the remaining $175 before the credit card bill arrives.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Columbus Day Should Be…

Tomorrow is a controversial federal holiday, so it is a good subject for a poll.

Please vote above, the poll will close at 8pm. Answers are presented in a random order, you can also make up your own answer.

No new post tomorrow, see you again on Tuesday.

— Steve Patterson

Panel To Discuss ‘Where We Stand 7th Edition: The Strategic Assessment of the St. Louis Region’ Report

Today’s post is about a potentially interesting panel discussion, from the email I received:

St. Louis Public Library – Central Library Auditorium
Wednesday, October 14, 2015 6:30–8 p.m. 

Don’t Wait For New Light Rail Station, Take MetroBus To IKEA

While I’ve ridden many MetroBus routes in the region, one I don’t recall is the #42 (Sarah). However, I’m familiar with it because other routes I ride, like the #10 (Gravois-Lindell), intersect with it. With the opening of the new IKEA St, Louis I noticed the #42 route makes a loop East past Sarah to Vandeventer. A new bus stop got my attention.

I always assumed it went North/South on Sarah, connecting with the Central West End MetroBus/MetroLink station via Forest Park. It does — but rather than turning there it uses Laclede to go East one block to Vandeventer.

If you use public transit in St. Louis you can easily get to IKEA. I use the #10 and just go down Vandeventer or Sarah from Lindell, but I could transfer to the #42 at Lindell & Sarah. Another option is the #32 from Manchester/Chouteau & Vandeventer. Many other MetroBus lines meet up with the #42 at the Central West End MetroLink light rail station.

I especially encourage the proponents of the North-South light rail to use this as an opportunity to actually familiarize themselves with MetroBus. The humble bus carries more people more places daily.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: To Fund MoDOT Missouri Should Increase Fuel Taxes, Toll I-70, & Revise Our Open Container Law

The Missouri Department of Revenue needs more money, voters rejected a sales tax. The Missouri legislature continues to ignore the most obvious solutions. Readers in the Sunday Poll put the options in the right order:

Q: Of the following, what should Missouri do to solve MoDOT’s funding shortfall: (check all that apply)

1. Increase fuel taxes 35 [38.04%]
2. TIE  20 [21.74%]
   1. Revise Missouri’s open container law so we can receive additional federal highway dollars
   2. Toll I-70 between metro STL & metro KC
3. Increase vehicle licensing/registration fees 13 [14.13%]
4. Increase sales taxes 4 [4.35%]
5. Nothing, stay the course 0 [0%]

Our fuel taxes are among the lowest in the country and our neighboring states — this is obvious.  Another is changing Missouri’s open container law — I mean actually having one:

Although a driver is prohibited from consuming alcohol while driving, Missouri has no general open container law for vehicles, a characteristic which Missouri shares only with the states of Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Mississippi, Virginia, and West Virginia. Any non-driving vehicle passenger thus is permitted to possess an open container and consume alcohol in Missouri while the vehicle is in motion, although 31 smaller municipalities, the largest being Independence and St. Charles, have local open container laws. The metropolises of St. Louis and Kansas City have no local open container laws, and thus the state law (or lack thereof) governs. This makes it possible for a passenger to drink legally through the entire 250-mile (400 km) trip across Missouri on Interstate 70between Downtown Kansas City and Downtown St. Louis, only closing his container while passing through the city limits of Independence, Bates City, Columbia, Foristell, and St. Charles.

As a result of having no state open container laws, under the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century of 1999, a percentage of Missouri’s federal highway funds is transferred instead to alcohol education programs each year. Since 1999, the Missouri General Assembly has considered several bills which would have created open container regimens satisfying the federal law, but each one “failed due to weak legislative support.” Anheuser-Busch leads opposition to enacting a passenger open container law. (Wikipedia)

What?

The federal law encourages states to outlaw open containers by changing the earmarks for transportation funding. Under TEA-21, federal standards require a complete ban on open containers in vehicles, and states not conforming must divert funds from road maintenance into alcohol education, enforcement and crash prevention. The Fed can’t tell states what to do, but they’re not against making this money-backed suggestion.

The rub is about $12 million less each year for road maintenance in Missouri, according to MoDOT spokeswoman Kristi Jamison. The trade-off is somewhat political; Missouri asserts its sovereignty by refusing to overstep the boundaries of private property, and the diverted money helps ameliorate drunk driving problems in the state. “One of the positive benefits is that it also goes to law enforcement to help with DUI enforcements, whether through overtime or equipment to help out,” Jamison says, and adds that the funds also contribute to 500 miles of guard cable on highway dividers. (Vox Magazine)

So millions every year aren’t being used to maintain our roads & bridges because an influential brewer wants to make sure passengers can consume their products?

— Steve Patterson