With a $775 million downpayment, the feds rush in to rescue bus service
Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue Heathline Credit: Center for Neighborhood Technology
When Cleveland’s $200 million Healthline opened for service in October 2008, its creators called it bus rapid transit (BRT) because of its shiny new vehicles, large stations, and dedicated bus lanes. But there’s nothing particularly “rapid” about the service the Heathline performs: along its 6.8-mile route between downtown’s Public Square and East Cleveland, buses stop at 33 stations in both directions, taking thirty-five minutes to get from one end to the other.
Nevertheless, those improvements were an important enough change for the buses along Euclid Avenue to increase ridership by 50% in the year since opening. In other words, people are attracted to aesthetic improvements that come with better buses and shelters; people are more likely to choose transit when it looks good, even if it’s not that fast.
In the context of the federal government’s announcement this week of $775 million in grants for local bus systems, Cleveland’s example may be just the right place to point, by showing that relatively minor improvements in the look and feel of transit networks can attract more users to transit.
The Federal Transit Administration’s grants, which will be announced late this summer, will be distributed to local public transportation agencies based on merit after undergoing competitive review. Cities are already lining up for the money (Baltimore, Dallas, etc). Funding will go towards new buses, equipment, and facilities, of which local agencies will be expected to pick up 20% of costs. The Healthline sets a precedent worth examining: people will respond to nice buses, frequent services, and comfortable stations. It’s nice to see Washington demonstrate its support of similar projects elsewhere.
These grants come in addition to the roughly eight billion dollars distributed each year for assorted public transportation capital costs.
None of these investments, unfortunately, will do anything to address the mounting operations funding crisis currently facing transit agencies from Maine to California. Congress has yet to allow the Department of Transportation to devote significant national funds to paying for the salaries of bus drivers or the fuel to fill up buses. With these new grants, Washington may be investing in buses and stops that are only lightly used.
Yonah Freemark is an Urban Leaders Fellow, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. He writes the Grassroutes column for Next American City. He also writes The Transport Politic blog. Contact him at yonah@americancity.org
Finding a Market for the Electric Car
Opposition to a Bus Rapid Transit System is More than Just NIMBYism
Leveraging Existing Transit Assets for New Transit-Oriented Development
Rob in Cleveland, OH on Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:20am
I find this post very disappointing. I think everyone who touts the virtues of BRT citing the Healthline ought to come out to Cleveland and ride it for themselves.
The 50% increase in ridership is particularly misleading because it’s based on previous-year ridership that was badly depressed because of the construction on Euclid Avenue that temporarily destroyed the corridor in order to build the corridor. Of course ridership is going to pick up! Overall ridership on RTA buses since 2007-2008 has dropped off a cliff. Come to Cleveland today and you will see plenty of aesthetically pleasing, but empty, stations and platforms along the Healthline… Plenty of shiny, but half-empty buses, even during the morning/afternoon rush. You will see red lights where there aren’t even intersections, and if you think the Healthline is technologically advanced and avoids long red-light cycles, you’d be unfortunately mistaken.
That’s not to say that the Healthline isn’t better than the old #6 bus. It’s not to say Euclid Avenue is a significantly better place than it was a few years ago. The best improvement, in my opinion, is the bicycle lanes that were added on Euclid Ave, but are rarely talked about in posts like these. Since public transit in Cleveland has gotten so terrible, the bike lanes now make it nice and easy to get downtown by bicycle instead of by transit.
I’m all for investing in public transit, but I am irked by how misleading posts about BRT, specifically citing Cleveland as a success, can really be.
Ben on Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:49am
There are a few places where the BRT shines for me. One is the fact that Euclid is much more traffic calmed than before. That in combination with bike lanes is a winner. Buses will eventually need to be replaced, so why not replace them with something more efficient at moving more people?
Eric Doherty in Vancouver Canada on Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:21pm
This kind of so-called Rapid Transit is designed to improve reliability, capacity and comfort, not speed. Otherwise it would have about 8 stops instead of 33. Reliability and comfort are important, sometimes as important as speed.
The problem is that there is no widely accepted name for this kind of service, neither for rail nor bus. How about Local Dedicated Lane Transit (LDLT)? This kind of transit has its place, but it was never designed to be rapid.
Bus rapid transit can be rapid, like light rail can also be rapid transit. But not if it stops every two blocks!
JohnWirtz on Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:21pm
Agreed that it isn’t very “rapid,” but they did remove about half the stops compared to the former local route (#6) on Euclid. That must be a travel time improvement. I talked to someone at RTA about their stop spacing and he said they removed everything they politically could. It’s interesting - and unsurprising - to hear that politicians may have been the one to prevent this from being bus rapid transit.
If there is ever enough ridership to justify it, it wouldn’t be hard to go to a mix of local and express services in the corridor, with the locals making all 33 stops and expresses doing about 6-10.