The $1 billion transportation plan approved by City Council Tuesday and on its way to approval by the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Camino Real RMA is fundamentally at odds with what I recall is one of City Council's stated goals -- to make El Paso one of the least car-dependent cities in the Southwest. [plan background]
It's par for the course in El Paso's status quo politics. No matter who is in office, when a major infrastructure project is approved, it's the same guys in the room. Big developers, big contractors, top bureaucrats. With a public official or two, because, after all, their votes are nominally necessary. When this plan was unveiled Monday, the guys in the room, among others, represented highway contractor JD Abrams, the development outfits of Woody Hunt and Bill Sanders, Texas Transportation Commission member Ted Houghton, and Mayor John Cook.
While gas prices shoot up, as the city struggles with factoring in the cost of fuel for essential services like fire and police, and for enterprise services, like mass transit -- which many might argue is an essential civic function -- we're celebrating spending a generation's worth of transportation funding on 20th century works.
This $1 billion deal, in the works behind closed doors since April, and unveiled on a Monday with the admonition that it needs to be done by the end of the week or the money goes away, oozes status quo.
All of a sudden, we're in too much of a hurry to have a community discussion about our priorities. It's a given that the priorities will be roads. And the council, mostly, with the exception of a few questions from city Rep. Beto O'Rourke, fell all over itself to show its approval. Presumably, the MPO and CRRMA will do the same thing today.
Eddie, Eddie, where were you on this one?
Put aside the promises that we'll solve some traffic problems. No. There is no building your way out of traffic. New roads will quickly fill up.
To be fair, toll roads might be a little different, as cost tends to whittle down a crowd. And maybe more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative fuels will enable us to maintain our well-traveled lifestyles, where commuting 10 miles or more to work is a norm.
Still, what do these new roads do? They further the large scale, master planned development to the Northeast (Hunt), East (Hunt and Schwartz), and Santa Teresa (Sanders). It might be master planned sprawl, but it's still sprawl.
Meanwhile, $23 million will go to a Bus Rapid Transit program. Putting aside the question of whether BRT is really mass transit of a different order, a more nimble version light rail, what percent of a $1 billion is $23 million? Or even if the $23 million is leveraged into two or four times that?
And a few lone civic activists are putting voice to reasonable questions: What if the toll projections do not materialize? What if the cost of materials goes up? Who will be on the hook to pay off the bonds, and to maintain the new roads? What roads will be first in line for maintenance, new or toll?
There is a big picture here. It's on a wall, on the top floor.
I don't know. Maybe this is just one of those days that makes me feel like moving to Portland.
But I think I'll stick it out. I don't need El Paso to change. Politics is politics, and writing and editing is writing and editing.
And the status quo, a billion dollars worth, is the status quo.
opinion
The billion-dollar status quo
by Sito Negron
Posted on July 24, 2008
















Omar
July 25, 2008
My sentiments exactly. While it's good news the city is moving ahead with its transportation infrastructure, the money dedicated to public transportation is dissapointing to say the least. Imagine if we spent that billion on out public transportation infrastructure instead? That would really be something worth noting. Can't say I'm surprised though.
Kathy Anderson
July 25, 2008
Thanks for saying exactly what was thinking. again. I can drive to work in 5 minutes , but taking the bus would require 45 minutes. My god, if LA can tackle mass transit, why can't we?
Helen Marshall
July 25, 2008
One problem from the get-go was that the Council, or at least some of its members, stated that the intent was to make El Paso the least car-dependent city in the Southwest (not just one of them, I believe, but the leader), and then offered no list of projects to do that, no list of indicators that could be marked off to know where we were in reaching that goal. Given that the state of New Mexico is creating a full-fledged commuter rail, and El Paso is making noises about a Bus Rapid Transit, I seriously doubt that this goal can ever be reached. Albuquerque has help from its boundaries, surrounded on most sides by federal or Indian-controlled land, and so it is being forced to work on greater density for building that makes public transit much easier to plan.
But what are the Council plans? Do the proponents of this goal think that by just announcing the goal that's all we have to do?
dave
July 25, 2008
kudos.
austin, portland. its a tempting thought.
its very upsetting to see the city rubber stamp this whole project and not address the larger problems of sprawl and fuel costs. this was an opportunity to put forward an alternative plan that could eventually provide real relief to people's pocketbooks via mass transit. not to mention the benefit to our suffocating, non-attainment airshed.
bus rapid transit is a crock. it will get the few people who are willing to ride or are dependent on the bus to their destinations faster.
at some point you have to ask yourself, how much are el pasoans willing to break from the status quo? elected officials are only held accountable by those who had their toes stepped on. and they've shown, once again, their unwillingness to upset hunt, sanders, and the boys.
Ray MacDonald
July 25, 2008
The Transportation plan was not planned behind closed doors. There were many Town Hall meetings about these plans especually about the Northwest corridor. TxDot and the City planners have been conducting these meetings over the last 5 years. The only ones that should be complaining are the ones that egnored the public discussions. Its too late to close the gate when all the animals have run away.
ep wonder
July 25, 2008
Its all about who is supporting who for next years election. City elections are next year, new mayor? new council? Hunt, Abrams, Sanders all have money to burn baby! and if it looks like some members of council are helping the pockets of possible donors then what's the problem? I mean its all about who scratches who's back or butt, right? Sad, as other cities in the same state move away from buses we have the rails right along I-10, helloo...
Anne Flores
July 25, 2008
Hunt, Sanders and the boys sound like some feudal lords, deciding what El Paso citizens need and will have the privilege to pay for all this at one point.
Can we talk here? How many people use these huge buses for daily transportation? Invest in smaller, more effecient buses. Get the routes established where you have the most need. Use the $23 million to really have a good and efficiently run public transportation system. If present managers are inadequate , find managers who know what they are doing. Finish/ and or start the new roads. Per contract, that any increases in price of materials building the new roads falls to the contractor not the citizens. Perhaps we can prevent prize gauging, and perhaps that way, these projects will be done timely. Repave and repair existing streets. Do not destroy North Mesa. That project was just finished and the street is holding up very well. Why do it all over again? It is not necessary. Projects in Santa Teresa should be financed by the State of New Mexico, not Texas, and by the way do you all really think that Mexico has the funds available to start all new infrastructures, roads, housing, WATER etc. for these new plants across the border of Santa Teresa? Better check first.
Have they (Mexico) finished paying for the all the developments on the Mexican side of the new Zaragoza bridge? Now they are being asked to do it again south of Santa Teresa? Better check again.
It is becoming very, very tiresome, to say the least, to have these "boys" play the "good old boy" game in this town and Portland sounds better and better. It is my opinion that the way business is conducted in El Paso, and especially when these big projects come up, the "big boys" give the impression of impropriety by being secretive and presenting the plans as a done deal. We, as taxpayers merit better and more extensive information, beforehand. I am all in favor for making El Paso a modern progressive town with good public services and a bit of cooperation from all parties involved would go a long way towards that goal. The feudal system was eliminated a few hundred years ago.
Ken G
July 25, 2008
Neighborhoods will eventually become mini-cities much like Los
Angeles. City and County should merge and then allow for smaller independent cities. Northeast, Downtown/Central, Upper Valley, Lower Valley, Far East EP. Evolution.
martina lorey
July 25, 2008
I have to wonder why we aren't trying to spend 1 Billion dollars on pedestrian & bicycle paths, as well as, desirable mass transit. We should look to our neighbors in Albuquerque, they get it.
ralph adame
July 25, 2008
sito needs to sit down and have a nice long chat with harold hahn the chair of the CRRMA. sito is so off the mark on most of his assertions regarding who was at play in creating and bring this plan forward.
Ray Graham
July 25, 2008
It is sad to agree, status quo politics is El Paso. Your articles, including this one, are great.
What does it take to wake up those who are registered to vote?
a. cruz
July 26, 2008
why not send a reporter to inteview city council members about their opinions.
fronteragril
July 26, 2008
Ralph Adame is a brown Ted Houghton.
Roberto Camp
July 26, 2008
Great article. Someone should take a cake over to City Hall to complement the Marie Atoinette antics of the mayor, city reps and conflict of interest ridden Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority board members.
Will
July 28, 2008
This article seems like a whole lotta reaching and too little fact. Maybe the advice to actually discuss it with someone who's worked on this project would benefit Mr. Negron.
Ron Dawson
August 4, 2008
Sito. I agree with your assessment. These things are "done deals" before the public has a chance to express a view. El Paso's MPO bought a bill of goods in Ocotober of last year about Bus Rapid Transit. With a little bit of homework, they could have discovered that the so called "transit think tank" called Breakthrough Technologies Inc., is actually a BRT lobby funded almost completely by petroleum and bus manufacturing interests. Follows is a copy of my letter to the mayor and city council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: upper14@aol.com [mailto:upper14@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:14 PM
To: Mayor
Cc: District #5; District #8; District #2; District #1; District #7; District #6; District #3; District #4; gwilliams@epcf.org
Subject: Bus Rapid Transit
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Here are a few of the reasons I believe we should opt for light rail rather than BRT. The supporters of BRT promote it as a "low cost alternative" to light rail. I believe that if BRT is done the way it was designed, it would cost as much or more than light rail. With light rail we are investing in the infrastructure that will serve us 40 years or more. Even a specially constructed busway would have an average life of 15 years or less before rebuild. Light rail vehicles carry more people at a lower operating cost than any busway. In San Francisco, when Muni replaced buses on the F line with vintage PCC streetcars, ridership doubled. Light rail ridership consistently outstrips projections. That has never happened on BRT. Light rail has a permanency that BRT connot duplicate. Consider also the following points. Thanks.
Ron Dawson
Concerned Citizen
BRT Fails to Attract Riders
Statistics show that busways attract only 33 percent of projected ridership, but rail lines exceed initial estimates by 22 percent. Notwithstanding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in concert with the highway and motor bus industry, has continued to advocate for BRT. In order to justify continued expansion of BRT, supporters have used rail planning models to predict bus patronage. Even though busway supporters have sponsored trips to places such as Curitiba, Brazil, to view what in their minds is a successful application of BRT technology, nowhere in North America has this mode of public transport attracted such rail passenger boardings.
BRT Costs More to Build
BRT systems also cost more to construct than many light rail lines, but less than subways or totally aerial lines unless the busways are also in subway or on aerial structures. In those circumstances, they will cost more than LRT facilities. The new 14-mile Orange Line BRT north of Los Angeles cost $350 million or $25 million a mile. The line is neither equipped with block signals to prevent rear end collisions nor crossing gates. At the same time, new light rail lines in Denver, Portland, Salt Lake City and St. Louis, with signals and crossing gates, were constructed at an average cost of $23 million a mile. New busways in Boston, Ottawa and Pittsburgh cost more than $50 million a mile. When one considers that light rail cars have a 40-year life compared with 15 years for buses, LRT is much less costly as well as more attractive and safer.
BRT is Not as Productive as Light Rail Transit
A study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that light rail vehicle was 15.5 percent less costly to operate than bus, all other factors being equal. Low floor light rail cars have a larger capacity than low floor buses of comparable length. The average capacity of a 40-foot low floor bus is only 37 seated passengers due to space that is taken up by the wheel wells which intrude on interior space that otherwise could be used for fare paying riders. While an articulated two-section low floor bus contains more seats, it will still have less capacity than a low floor light rail car. Unlike BRT, a light rail line can increase line capacity by adding more cars to a train, resulting in an increase in operator productivity. The only way to increase the capacity of BRT is to add more buses, each of which will require another driver resulting in higher operating costs.
BRT a Failure - Four Cities' Experience
Detroit was one of the first cities to adopt BRT was Detroit. Until the mid-1950s, Detroit had a fleet of modern PCC streetcars which operated swiftly on busy trunk lines on wide avenues leading from downtown to the suburbs. The streetcars were abandoned and plans were announced for a 60-mile-an-hour BRT replacement system to be placed on the John Lodge and Edsel Ford freeways. Bus stops were incorporated in the freeways with pull-off lanes, but vehicular congestion became so intense during the rush hours traffic that bus drivers were instructed to avoid the freeways in favor of the less-congested local streets. Since then, all express bus service in Detroit has been discontinued and that city now has the lowest transit ridership per capita and the highest cost per passenger mile of any major American transit system. A similar BRT service was provided in St. Louis; however, ridership declined over the years and it too was eventually discontinued.
Pittsburgh announced plans in 1963 for the construction of a busway to the eastern suburbs. Projected initially to carry 80,000 weekday passengers, the latest figures show that it is only attracting 28,000 weekday riders. Total bus ridership on the Pittsburgh transit system declined by 26 percent despite the construction of busways. When the light rail line serving the South Hills area of Pittsburgh was shut down for reconstruction, extra bus service was provided on the nearby South Busway. The 8,000 weekday LRT passengers declined significantly to a mere 1,500 on the busway. The South Busway anticipated 32,000 weekday passengers, but it never achieved those lofty figures. During the second energy crisis of 1980, it attracted as many as 20,000, but that fell 25 percent to 14,500, which is less than the number of bus riders that was carried in the corridor before the busway was built. The newest BRT line in Pittsburgh is the West busway. Initial cost estimates were $325 million, but when a $515 million bid was received, a shorter busway was constructed. Originally planned to carry 50,000 weekday passengers, only 7,500 daily riders are using the new line.
Los Angeles constructed a $500-million BRT system along the Harbor Freeway between San Pedro and downtown Los Angeles. Before it was built, the California Department of Transportation (CDOT) predicted that it would carry as many as 74,000 daily passengers; however, eight years after the line opened, ridership stands at just 3,000 passengers a day. The eight stations on the line are largely deserted and have become havens for vagrants. The station at Carson Boulevard serves an average of 20 people a day. Competition from the nearby LRT Blue Line route is believed to be a factor in the low Harbor Freeway busway ridership. That rail service carries more than 70,000 riders each day. Surveys revealed that many of them would rather be on a smooth running train than a freeway bus.
Ottawa constructed a large network of busways for the Canadian capital. As the system expanded, the ridership actually declined. This was reversed when diesel light rail cars (DLRT) began operating on a rail line that feeds the busway. The success of the diesel rail service convinced the City Council to approve the construction of a 59-mile electric light rail system. The new light rail service is expected to provide a higher quality service than the busway, relieve the downtown congestion caused by hundreds of buses from the BRT clogging the streets, and provide for expected population growth.
BRT Safety Inferior to Light Rail Transit
The safety record of light rail transit is far superior to busways. Pittsburgh's three busways have no grade crossings. Nevertheless, at least seven people have been killed on them. One was a bus driver who did not slow down quickly enough in the snow. Another accident killed four people including another driver when two buses collided head on. A busway in Miami, Fla., has grade crossings like a rail line and has had so many accidents at these crossings that buses are now forced to slow down as they approach each vehicular crossing. Consequently, in November 2002, voters approved the replacement of these buses with an LRT system. A new busway in suburbs north of Hollywood, Calif., also has many grade crossings which have produced so many accidents that speed restrictions have been imposed on the buses using the BRT line. The downside is that the slower speeds reduce the attractiveness of the line to passengers.
BRT is Affected by Adverse Weather
Buses also do not perform as well as rail cars in inclement weather. Boston has had to remove the articulated buses on its Silver Line BRT because they fishtail dangerously in the snow. In the most recent snowstorm in February 2006, NJ Transit shut down its entire intrastate and interstate bus system, but the light rail lines in Newark and Jersey City continued to operate. As already mentioned, snow was the major factor in a fatal BRT crash in Pittsburgh.
Summary
In summary, a Bus Rapid Transit system does not provide any positive benefits over Light Rail Transit because:
Buses are slower.
Buses carry fewer passengers.
BRT systems fail to meet ridership projections.
Busway capacity expansion can only be provided by additional vehicles with additional drivers.
Bus-only roadways are usually more expensive to build than rail rights-of-way.
Buses on reserved roadways have inferior safety records to rail lines on rights-of-way.
Buses are not dependable in snow.
Conclusion - BRT is Not the Best Choice
While the initial perception remains that Bus Rapid Transit systems are attractive for use between densely populated urban and less densely inhabited suburban areas; evidence collected has proved conclusively that claims for its effectiveness have been greatly overestimated. The admitted ability of independently guided buses to collect and distribute passengers from suburban and rural areas has been largely offset by the preference of the riders for fixed rail transit systems. Again and again, passengers have voted with their feet, and when they have, Light Rail Transit has been their overwhelming choice - not Bus Rapid Transit.