Cities can take a new look at underfunded mass transit projects

The U.S. has a long history of underfunding mass transit. The reasons for this run the gamut, from American society’s dependency on—and love for—cars and driving to the fact that single-family zoning accounts for three-quarters of all housing in America. This type of land use leads to urban sprawl, which typically makes access to mass transit difficult, if not impossible. Density and transit go hand in hand.

The bottom line here is that public transportation commuters constitute only about 5% of all workers in the U.S. As a result, mass transit projects, which rely on a mix of federal, state and local funds, often take a back seat to other, more pressing issues. This has led to a $176 billion backlog in replacing the country’s transit infrastructure.

That’s not to say that mass transit projects are non-existent. At present, the United States has 32 metro systems, 11 of which are subways or underground systems such as New York’s famed subway system and San Francisco’s BART. At least a dozen American cities are considering or currently building mass transportation systems, including: Washington, D.C., which is constructing a subway to connect Dulles Airport to the suburbs of Northern Virginia; Austin, Texas, whose voters approved a property tax increase to fund a light rail system; and six other markets—Chicago; Milwaukee; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Alameda County, Calif.; and Montgomery County, Md.—which are considering bus rapid transit (BRT) 

This level of activity, coupled with the success of those systems already operational and increased public interest in generating a cleaner environment, has led some markets nationwide to reconsider their historic underinvestment in public transportation. While interest in mass transit solutions may be heating up, the questions that remain are what solution is best—a fixed rail system, such as a subway or light rail line, or BRT—and which government has money for a rail system that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars per mile?

While there are pros and cons to both solutions, BRT seems to be the favored choice among those urban areas which recently have decided the time to add or upgrade mass transit is now. When comparing BRT to a fixed rail system, BRT does have several distinct advantages:

• Flexibility and speed First and perhaps foremost, buses by their very nature are more flexible than a fixed rail line, which can only go where the rail goes. Buses can easily be rerouted in response to changes in traffic patterns or construction work. New routes can be added to accommodate shifting commuting patterns or transport workers to new job centers. Further, dedicated busways which reserve road spaces exclusively for BRT use and priority signaling at intersections enable buses to move quickly through crowded city streets, leading to faster travel times. Some BRT systems even include passing lanes so that express buses can pass buses which make more frequent stops.

• Cost-effectiveness Buses are substantially cheaper to purchase and maintain than light rail or subway vehicles. Similarly, the infrastructure required to implement a BRT system is typically less expensive to construct than a light rail or subway would be, while in most cases the time to make the system operational is significantly shorter. This makes BRT a particularly attractive option for cities that need a quick and inexpensive way to deal with traffic congestion and limited transportation budgets.

• Positive environmental impact Like all mass transit solutions, BRT is designed to help in reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Unlike fixed rail systems, though, buses can run on a variety of fuels, including diesel, electric and diesel-electric hybrids. According to the Federal Transit Administration, electric bus use is steadily increasing nationwide, with 43 states now opting to make electric buses a part of their fleets. Over the long haul, this shift to electric or hybrid buses will contribute to reduced traffic congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality in urban areas, allowing cities to more easily reach their CO2 emissions goals.  

• Comfort and ease of use It is important to point out that BRT buses are not your standard transit bus. BRT buses are typically more like a luxury coach. While buses are adapted to meet the specific needs of each transportation system, they are typically longer and more articulated than a standard bus, allowing them to carry 60-80 passengers. BRT buses have low-floor entry points with two to three doors on one or both sides, making it easier for passengers to board and exit quickly.

• Integration Typically, BRT can be integrated more easily into existing transportation networks than light rail. Buses can also be coordinated with other modes of transportation to create a seamless transportation system. 

• Economic development BRT can stimulate economic development by providing ready access to business and job centers spread throughout the city. Over an extended period, BRT can also be used to attract investment dollars into less developed or left-behind urban areas.     

That’s not to say that fixed rail lines don’t have their advantages when compared to BRT. Fixed rail systems can carry more passengers than BRT (typically up to 200 riders vs. 60-80 on a BRT bus). Because they travel on dedicated tracks, fixed rail systems are unaffected by traffic congestion and disruptions, making them both faster and more reliable than BRT. Dedicated tracking also means lower traffic interference and greater speed. Finally, fixed rail is viewed by many as a more prestigious transit option which can enhance an area’s image and potentially attract more development along the rail route.   

Fixed rail, however, comes with two significant downsides. First, fixed rail systems will only have an economic advantage if the region has density. Quite simply, 10-20 units per acre does not make the grade. Second, the cost to build a fixed rail system in an urban area can range from $100 million to $300 million per miles depending on such factors as the type of rail (light vs. heavy rail) and construction complexity due to existing infrastructure.

In suburban Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C., for example, the 16.2-mile Purple Line, a light rail line being constructed from Bethesda to New Carrollton, originally was projected to cost $5.6 billion. The actual cost, though, has nearly doubled to almost $10 billion—or more than $600 million per mile—due to mounting delays and escalating costs. 

By comparison, the cost to build a BRT system is typically in the $10-$40 million per mile range, depending on the project’s scale, location, and infrastructure requirements. Admittedly, though, BRT systems also have their drawbacks, from the complexities of coordinating with local authorities to temporary traffic disruptions due to construction. 

While no mass transit system is perfect, the flexibility and low capital cost of BRT would seem to outweigh fixed rail’s greater capacity and reliability. As a result, it is incumbent on each market considering adding mass transit to its transportation network to weigh the pros and cons of each system carefully, examining the potential demand for the system, prospective ridership, cost, and potential impact on communities expected to be impacted by the project.