Another lesson in where you stand depends on where you sit (transit)

----------
Update: Action Committee for Transit has a press release out, responding to the WRI report. See "BUS BACKERS CAN'T DENT PURPLE LINE NUMBERS."
----------

has to do with the recent World Resources Institute study weighing in on the Purple Line, and coming out in favor of bus "rapid" transit. See "Study: Bus transit better than light rail for Md.," from the Washington Business Journal.

I wrote this in a response to an entry on The Overhead Wire, "Leave Something Out?," which also links to the study (In the comment thread a couple people made good points, one that WRI doesn't favor light rail, and that a grant from Shell helped create the WRI transportation research program.)
----
The thing you have to remember is that WRI is an active proponent of BRT as a transportation solution overseas, and they work on many projects there.

There is no question that BRT works great overseas, where far more people don't own cars compared to the U.S., and where people are willing to endure crush loads double what people are willing to endure in North America. In other words, they fit about 160 people on a 60 foot bus.

And payroll is much cheaper in other countries than it is in the U.S.

WRI wants more BRT in the U.S. to help justify their case for their work in foreign countries.

BRT in Bogota. Photo from the World Resources Institute. But where are you going to get the space to put 5 lanes for BRT on University Boulevard? (Click through to the full sized photo, it's great.)

But this fails to take into account three realities: (1) most people in the U.S., especially in the suburbs, have cars, access to cars, or could buy them; (2) to get people with the option of automobility to use transit you have to provide a high quality alternative; (3) research has proven time and time again that choice riders will ride fixed rail and except in rare instances, they won't ride bus.

The other thing it fails to take into account is the transit reality in Metropolitan Washington where people are familiar with transit, particularly heavy rail, a/k/a Metro or the subway. I just can't see people being willing to ride the bus eagerly when they know about rail options. I ride buses and I know that except in a few situations, for the most part riders are lower income, mostly people of color. The apparent demographics do not match those of higher income populations in the region.

That being said, Montgomery County has one of the most successful suburban bus systems in the U.S., although for the most part it is designed to move people from home to subway station (although not all of the system is configured that way) and back.

Also in our region, because policymakers know that full funding of rail-based transit (heavy, light, streetcar, railroad expansion) in all forms is not achievable, they are selling BRT too.

But we don't have, for the most part, the ability to deliver BRT in the fashion it is provided in places like Curitiba and Bogota--on dedicated, exclusive separated busways. Fortunately, many of the 1960s freeway plans in the region were halted by community opposition.

But lack of highways, from the BRT perspective, it means the region lacks the type of usable freeway lane capacity that can be directed to fast BRT service. (Of course, this doesn't get into the issue of the fact that most freeway based transit systems don't work too well in terms of getting high usage.)

Instead, mostly what is being provided is limited stop but not really "express" service. I call it bus rapider transit.

We should just be direct and say we want to improve the transit system for people who have few choices, and make it work so great that people with mobility choices will ride it as well.

It's a shame that some of the Montgomery County politicos, people I had favored, are coming out in favor of BRT because they believe they can get more transit service for the same money (also fund another BRT system in upper Montgomery County).

Who cares if you fund 2 "great" systems if they aren't used, or don't accomplish the same objectives in terms of true mode shift and land use improvements.

I am in Pittsburgh at the moment. If people don't know, it is one of the only places in the U.S. with true BRT services. It's fast (at least the routes I've ridden), using old trolley right of way, and on routes separated from any other traffic.

See this piece from Light Rail Now for some photos on one of the segments: Pittsburgh West Busway - Bus Rapid Transit

But in the great scheme of things, in the mobility network in Greater Pittsburgh, the bus rapid transit services are hardly used. Regardless of the "success" of BRT in Los Angeles (again a case where BRT was used because of lack of money for fixed rail) I think that communicates the reality of BRT in the U.S. It meets most of the definitions of what FTA says should be quality BRT. And it doesn't get used.

And the DC region has successful fixed rail transit... making lack of use by choice riders almost certain.

(Perhaps BRT could work, especially initially, with the upper MontCo "Corridor Cities Transit" proposal but only because within the proposed service area of that transit line there are extremely limited fixed rail transit options currently.)

---------
"where you stand depends on where you sit" is a point made by Graham Allison in the book Essence of Decision. The book is an analysis of how the U.S. policymakers handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the line refers to how to explain the policy positions of different government agencies.

Everyone has their "bias" or issue orientation, and it is important for that orientation to be named and identified, rather than to allow the organization to lay out its position as seemingly objective. (i.e., how the Downtown DC BID, which is mostly an organization run by the largest property owners within its geographic service area, says that property taxes are too high, in a current policy paper, "DC's Response to the Global Finacial and Economic Crisis").