Transportation Spending

50% of Transportation Spending Devoted to Transit Carrying 4.5% of Rides by 2040

• Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2040 [a-e]
  • $191 billion (2015$) projected transportation spending 2010-2040 [c]
  • 50% of spending for transit to provide 4.5% of rides by 2040
• How can so much moneyaccomplish so little?
• Wasteful projects
  • Duplicate instead of add high quality service
  • Increases transit costs
  • Reduce convenience

(References & Calculations)

How Does So Much Money Accomplish So Little? SOUNDTRANSIT Light Rail

• Frequent, fast & convenient mass transit lacking over hundreds of miles of roads providing NO reasonable alternative to driving
• Light Rail explodes costs of moving people over well served routes instead of adding NEW high quality service (ie: Swift) [f]
  • Swift is an example of adding high frequency and speed bus service using the most cost effective methods (discussed on website)

(References & Calculations)

So Much Money for So Little
Wonder how our local transit agencies can spend 50% of our transportation dollars on projects which support less then 5% of our daily trips? Click Sound Transit Extreme Cost Light Rail to see the story of how Sound Transit, our regional transit agency, is determined to make this a reality by spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars building a light rail system which will carry less than 1% of our regions daily trips. There is, however, an alternate scenario based on providing the maximum new and improved transit service for each dollar spent, which I also describe at Bus Rapid Transit BRT When Costs Matter.

BRT When Costs Matter

The Washington Policy Center estimated that the proposed Sound Transit ST3 $15 billion tax hike will raise yearly transportation taxes an additional $542 per average household (by 2018). Most of the money is so that Sound Transit can move more express bus passengers to rail for about $180,000 per daily round trip rider, in addition to the normal operating losses (fares covered 31% of operating costs in 2015). Cost calculations for the latest proposal are being worked out.

There is, however, an alternative which few people have experienced in the US that can easily reduce the insane cost of Sound Transit Light Rail while providing more convenient service. It’s called Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). (RapidRide is NOT BRT) BRT began as a lower cost alternative to heavy rail construction in the developing world in the 1970’s. More recently it has spread to the developed world in response to the absurd increase in light rail construction costs.

A Brief History of Modern Light Rail

From Low Cost to High Cost Low Capacity

• The term light rail first appeared in 1970’s to describe modern streetcars which were often larger and slightly faster than their predecessors.
• The light in light rail refers to the system’s lighter load capacity than heavy rail’s.
• Light rail vehicles may share streets with autos which limits the trains’ length and the headway between them.
• Modern light rail began in 1981 San Diego as a lower cost rail option [a-c].
  • Heavy rail costs had reached prohibitive levels ($260 million/mile in 2014 dollars) and San Diego needed other options.
  • San Diego built a 13.5 mile trolley for $16.6 million/mile.
  • As other cities noticed this lower cost, a light rail building boom ensued.
• Costs increased, however and soon we had High Cost Low Capacity Light Rail
  • In response many cities built Bus Rapid Transit systems to economically improve service
  • Rail envy drove other transit agencies to ignore horrible economics and keep pursuing light rail.
• Seattle’s SoundTransit is the poster child for high cost low capacity light rail [d-f].
  • SoundTransit’s Central Link cost $600 million/mile (2014 dollars).

While Sound Transit is totally focused on building rail at any cost rather than moving the most people for each spent taxpayer dollar the birth of modern light rail was ironically driven by city planners in San Diego trying to lower the cost of rail using an abandoned freight rail line.

The Birth of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT is rail on tires to reduce costs

Out of control heavy rail construction costs lead to the birth of lower cost (and lower capacity) Light Rail Transit (LRT). The explosion of light rail construction costs, which Sound Transit epitomizes, has led to a similar growth in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

• BRT duplicates heavy rail characteristics to reduce travel time [g]
  • Dedicated bus lanes
  • Off board fare collection
  • Platform level boarding from stations
  • More doors on bus to speed boardings
  • Traffic signal priority
  • Passing lanes at stations for express buses
• Began in Curitiba, Brazil (1974) [g]
• 186 Cities implement some version of BRT in first 4 decades [h]
  • 386% growth in number of systems in last decade
  • 31.7 million daily boardings (2014)
• King County RapidRide is NOT BRT
  • RapidRide lacks basic aspects of BRT system to reduce travel times

Bus Rapid Transit Has Higher Capacity then Light Rail

Calculating Transit System Peak Hourly Passenger Capacity

• Peak Passenger Capacity = vehicle(s) load x frequency
• 1 train with multiple cars can carry more passengers than a single bus
  • Light Rail: 4-car Seattle: (296 seated + 296 standing) [d,e]
  • Double Decker bus: 77 seated + 18 standing [f]
  • Sound Transit’s light rail capacity depends on making riders stand
  • Making passengers stand doesn’t encourage regional trips (longer distance ridership), like to Everett.
  • These numbers account for North American standards of personal space.
• But dedicated bus lanes can support much higher frequency than rail
  • 360 buses per hour is a max design frequency for a dedicated bus lane [a]
    Holland Tunnel (NYC) handles up to 730 buses/hr per lane [b]
  • 30 trains per hour typical design value for rail [c]

There are no passing lanes for metro rail systems, although a handful of larger heavy rail systems have dual tracks on certain sections, such as Chicago and New York. This means that a single train delay in unloading passengers at one station can disrupt an entire route.  To avoid this rail systems rarely run trains more frequently than every 2 minutes compared to the proven 10 second headway for full BRT systems. Brisbane, Australia ran 295 buses per hour through a single bus lane on their Bus Rapid Transit System back in 2013, while Guangzhou, China was up to 350 buses per hour, validating the 10 second spacing.

Dedicated bus lanes can move more passengers than a light rail line

Snohomish County’s SWIFT is a local example of BRT Lite

SWIFT exemplifies cost driven intelligent transit

• Swift I is Bus Rapid Transit Lite implemented in Puget Sound
  • Lite version includes least costly aspects of a true BRT system
  • 3 year construction time
  • 16.7 miles between Everett & Aurora village on
    SR99 + 16 stations each direction
  • $32 million (2014$) = $2.0 million/mile [a,b]
• Swift I Performance (2014)
  • 20% faster compared to 101 bus [c-e]
  • 12 minute to 20 minute frequency [f]
• Snohomish County voters approve Swift II Nov 2015
  • 12.5 miles from Canyon Park to Boeing Everett Plant
  • $42 – 48 million (2016$) [f]
• SOUNDTRANSIT (ST3) High Capacity Transit Study
  • $4.5 to 5.0 billion to reach Boeing / Everett with rail [g]

Bogota BRT: Providing 2.4 Million Rides per Day

After reading about the legendary performance of the Bogota, Colombia Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for a decade I headed down there to see it first hand in 2011. Legendary performance means low cost per rider and large travel time reductions.

Bogota has the population density and proven ridership patterns to justify a heavy rail system. The high cost of rail, however, would have limited their ability to improve service over the vast majority of a 610 square mile service area so their mayor pushed through a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system instead. The system which is called Transmileneo became the gold standard in BRT for the vast improvement in transit travel times, huge ridership numbers, and low construction cost per passenger.

The Bogota Transmilenio has received a huge amount of attention for it’s economic performance and ridership numbers relative to a heavy rail system Medellín opened around the same time. Bogota’s published construction cost numbers for phase I of their BRT system was less than 1/10th the construction costs for the Medellín metro leading to claims for a 10 to 1 cost advantage for Bus Rapid Transit compared to heavy rail. Meanwhile, the Bogota BRT system soon carried twice the riders as the metro system dispelling the myth of low capacity bus.

The biggest challenge Transmilenio faces is overcrowding with 2.4 million daily weekday boardings (2014). The main line is maxed out with a peak ridership in one direction at some stations of 45,000 riders per hour. The 45,000 riders are carried by 2 lanes of buses which is often missed.

While there have been discussions about building a HEAVY Rail (not Light) system in the downtown at a huge cost, some are concerned about the increased travel times from losing express buses. BRT systems are built around express buses to minimize travel time.

While today their are multiple BRT systems carrying 1, 2, or 3 million riders per day for a comparable cost, Transmilenio’s place in history as the first big city application to catch the world’s attention is undeniable.

About me

My name is Mark Ahlers and I am a Technical Fellow (scientist/engineer) for a major company and a transit researcher and fact checker for smartertransit.org.

Growing up across the street from the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and Northwestern Commuter Rail train tracks I developed a love of trains at an early age. My family lacked a car so I learned the value an efficient public transportation system and what matters to the riding public.

Early in my university career I considered focusing on transportation engineering, having been inspired by the San Diego trolley. Cost driven city leaders were building their light rail system at less then 1/10th the cost of a heavy rail system at the time (using an abandoned freight rail line), which initiated a light rail building boom.

While I never became a transportation planner, my interest in public transportation remains. I’ve tracked the public transit industry for the past 30 years and even traveled worldwide to experience the operations of award winning public transit systems.

Why I created this site

While preparing to attend a taping of a Town Hall on Puget Sound traffic congestion I was searching the Sound Transit website for information on their latest ST3 request for $15 billion (which has since increased to $35 billion in 2014$) to support further Light Rail spending I came across the following statement;

“Sound Transit continues to build a track record of delivering major capitol projects on schedule under budget.”

Being a mass transit enthusiast, I knew that the initial light rail construction Seattle voters approved had doubled in cost and still wasn’t finished 10 years after the promised 2006 completion date. This deception and difficulties I faced locating basic cost benefit data convinced me that Puget Sound voters needed easy to understand information regarding Sound Transit spending and alternatives.

Since I love riding, researching, and talking about the performance of public transit systems, creating a facts and data based website devoted to revealing Sound Transit Light Rail performance seemed like an ideal way to serve my community.

I hope that you will find the information on www.SoundTransitRevealed.com interesting, and that you will consider it when it comes time to vote on the ST3 tax increase in the upcoming November election.