U.S. Policy Plays Favorites With Public Transportation
by Sean Fisher, Cincinnati, Ohio 
on 09.26.07
It's a case that pits electricity versus petrol, density versus sprawl and tracks versus road. Portland, Oregon recently found out that their much-acclaimed streetcar system wasn't good enough for the feds. Even though their system of modern-day streetcars has spurred economic development, drawn the creative class and changed perceptions about public transportation, the city's planned expansion of the service could be facing roadblocks from the Federal Transit Administration. The FTA would rather see the money from a program called Small Starts go to buses instead, specifically bus rapid transit, or BRT.
Through the Small Starts program, Congress directed the federal bureaucracy to give streetcar proposals credit not just for moving people efficiently but for spurring growth nearby in the form of restaurants, shops, apartment and condominium buildings. Bus routes, which can easily change, do not show such corollary development.
In some ways, this is not surprising. BRT is, in many cases , cheaper to build than rail-based transportation. And, buses are a known commodity to most urban areas of the United States - whereas streetcars are just starting to build a revival. However, although there have been successful BRT programs in places such as Bogota, Colombia, and Curitiba, Brazil, BRT has not caught on in wide-scale usage in the U.S. Most American cities are hesitant to dedicate two full lanes of traffic to bus service. Portland-style streetcar systems, on the other hand, run within existing traffic lanes, building density by producing compact development. Not that the FTA equates density with good transportation.
In fact, the FTA has already stated that the problems associated with sprawl are not considered. Perhaps the biggest downfall of the FTA's favoritism is that it caters to sprawled development. The new guidelines give preference not only to the most cost-effective services, but to "how quickly they move people over great distances."
Promoting the compact land use that could result from rail transit isn't such a high priority, said a Federal Transit Administration official involved in rail planning.
In contrast, Portland prides itself on such compact development practices. Residents in areas serviced by Portland's streetcar travel only an average of 9.9 miles per day, compared with 21.8 miles per day for Greater Portland. Which begs the question: is it better to build a transportation system that contributes to compact neighborhoods or one that simply moves people around? The FTA has certainly made their stance clear.
::Via Oregon Live
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Be a Green Volunteer in Portland
- Lesser Known City Parks: Portland
- DO Go Chasing Waterfalls
- 6 Driving Fundamentals You Must Master to Extend the Life of Your Vehicle
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Travel Green and Save Money without Giving Up Anything (Except Your Carbon Footprint)
Here's an interesting article from the Willamette Week, a Portland independent newspaper, about Portland's streetcars and the influence of Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who is dubbed the head of the "Transportation Mafia." Many donors to Blumenhauer have significantly benefited from rising property values due to the heavily federal government subsidized construction of the streetcar system in Portland.
http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3345/9589/
Sean, nice post. I don't really have a problem with promoting BRT over light rail in many cases. It's way way cheaper. Check out the Orange Line in LA.
The problem is that BRT is often a psychological barrier to Americans who are taught that riding a bus is "wrong" or "beneath them", but since BRT runs in its own right-of-way, it can easily be converted to LR (or something else) in the future for a relatively low cost.
That said, if you *already* have LR in a city, it's silly to stop an expansion in favor of BRT if it means that people will have to get off the train and switch. Any transfer is undesirable as it hugely slows things down.
Before knowing the whole story, I don't want to defend the actions of the FTA, but there are some strong advantages to BRT over light rail. Cost of maintenance is very high and the service reaches /expandsmore quickly with BRT to get to under-served communities faster. It takes far fewer years to install and can use alternate energy to power with HUGE buses.
BRT is doing very well in Los Angeles (the valley), Vancouver, Miami, Phoenix, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Seatlle and Boston and is planned on a large-scale for parts of NYC (First and Second avenues). It is also about to be rolled out in many, many small communities across the US. The buses canalso be quite gorgeous (see Los Angeles).
One more thing: BRT and Light Rail can have the exact same effect on transit-oriented development if executed correctly, with services like dedicated lanes and off-board fare payment. They are essentially the same thing, minus the tracks.
Many of the big citiesin America have GREAT mass transit systems not Buses. METRO, BART, The L, the Subway. Every try to ride the bus in LA or Miami?
A very nice looking shuttle.
Portland is definitely heading in the right direction with the resurrection of their streetcar system. It's a downright shame the government has not yet ridded itself of the pro-suburban mindset of the 1950s. Maybe it's just my Eurocentric bias, but promoting sprawl while the inner-cities hold so much potential for opportunity and diversity seems like an ignorant, wasteful effort. If you truly want to be eco-friendly, maintain vibrant urban centers and leave nature alone.
Federal bureaucracy can be so frustrating! I think just about anyone who lives in a city with the option of bus or streetcar/rail will tell you the streetcar/rail experience is generally a lot better.
It is incredible how hard our Federal so-called government resists progress on the most critical issues of our day (environment and war policy). Who elected them?
More education on the underlying issues for government members is clearly needed. I don't think they hate this country, but I do believe they are badly informed, and perhaps have the wrong advisers guiding their thinking. In the case of the president and vice-president of our country, replacement appears to be the only answer.
Those trams, or "streetcars" as you call them are one of the best inventions ever. Keeping them in a lane with traffic, though, seems a bit counterproductive to me. They're not quite as wide as buses in most cases, and they require much less room -- width wise! -- than a car. So you can fit two sets of rails (to go in two directions) in roughly the same space as about 1.5 car lanes. Even less if you have oversized lanes.
A further bonus of giving them a different lane, is that this traffic-free lane could also be used by buses or emergency services. I like trams!
I lived in Portland for a few years, and the streetcars were a dream. Quite simply, it's how you got from one side of downtown to the other. Having a 'fareless square' in which they were free didn't hurt.
Buses are cheaper, but then there's also the ridership issues. Portland's downtown also has a bus mall which can take people up and down for free, but instead people only use it to board for trips out of the city center.
Probably just because the streetcar is new and shiny. :-/
It may sound stupid, but rails are easier because it is easy to figure out where they will go. The stations are the visual cues and since they are never re-routed once you learn the system you are set. Buses are more confusing because they can go anywhere, the routes change, the stops are harder to locate. These are small things, but they matter. Rail programs also think through parking better, are easier to board and exit (due to lower floors), can hold bikes inside, are smoother, and offer more space when it is crowded.
Finally, how much easier/cheaper is it to build 2 new lanes for a BRT? Of course if you re-purpose those lanes it is easy, but that is not a fair comparison.
I vote for streetcars ... but can we get some more stylish ones? Why not go for San Fran style ones?
Like with cycles, if it was sexier, than more Americans would take part.
but can we get some more stylish ones?
Because this isn't 1890. Just kidding. What's wrong with the new designs? I think they look great. Especially the orange cars. Plus, you need the modern low-floor designs so elderly & the disabled can board quickly and easily. The Portland Streetcar is packed and well used. To me, it sounds like a success.
As for buses, I think they should stay out of the city centers due to their width, large turning radiuses, noise and exhaust when not run on electricity. Railed cars turn tighter than buses because the tracks guide all of the wheels around corners. Give us subways, street trams and bike paths and we'll all be merry!
Another thing, when I lived in Europe I never witnessed the trams being affected by snow days. No re-routes, delays or chaining up!
Its too easy to cheat with BRT and run them as normal routes. Unless they have separate lanes and stations, with a proper map, they have the same problems as standard bus lines (which are, somewhat ironically, akin to those that killed the first generation of trolleys)
Electric vehicles (including trolleybuses) have the distinct advantage of at the very least moving the pollution out of the city center, and probably getting at least some of the energy from non carbon sources (in the case of Portland, possibly most).