BRT vs Streetcar - Who gains and who loses?

In the Sunday Oregonian (11/24/13 pg. O4), the Commentary features opposite sides of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vs Streetcar debate.

 John Charles, President of the Cascade Policy Institute presents his case for BRTs as being much lower cost to build and operate, more flexible and, faster than streetcars.  Charles compares Portland's streetcar system to the Los Angeles BRT system and with numbers and a description of the buses which concludes with an undeniable advantage for the BRT.  He says the LA "bus operates in general-purpose traffic lanes and achieves relatively high speeds by having stops spaced .75 miles apart, on average.  Also, the Metre Rapid buses have the technical capacity to shorten a red light or extend a green light at intersections to improve travel time."

At one SW Corridor Plan meeting I attended, attendees were given a handout that described the "Gold Standard" BRT systems as having dedicated travel lanes that would be able to secure the maximum federal dollars for construction.  And for Metro's obstruction of car travel?  Can you imagine Hwy. 99 with one lane in each direction reserved for buses only, and one lane in each direction left for cars?  BRTs might just be one answer for the region's congestion problems, but not at the sacrifice of automobile service.  Other hybrids and alternatives exist, so don't fall for the one size fits all story when you hear it - and you will.

Jim Mark, Chairman of Portland Streetcar Inc. and CEO of Melvin Mark Cos. (a real estate firm in based in downtown Portland) proclaims the streetcar to be the best solution to urban transportation.  It must be noted that Mr. Marks has a vested interest in the streetcar's success since it may benefit his firm's development projects.  He honestly tells us that streetcars "spur the growth of housing and businesses" and "make Portland the vibrant, livable city we have been working so hard to create for the last 40 years."  (I'd like to know who "we" is.)  Streetcars also "inspire developers to invest along the streetcar line."  Mark also admits that development "would not have happened at the scale it did without smart public-private partnerships*."

*Note: PPPs (Public-Private Partnerships) are shorthand for public subsidies to private, for-profit companies, usually within an urban renewal district.

Streetcars have always been about being a catalyst for development that  Central Planners want to see happen.  The fact that they do not meet revenue goals (or even come close to offsetting the cost of operations) is not important - it is our subsidy to the developers who will profit from the transit - and for the greater good of all.

Is anyone else tired of "vibrant" yet?

From the Metro Website:

June 13, 2013  2:30 PM

Bus rapid transit could meet region's transportation needs

By Molly Simas.  Bylined writers are Metro staff. Stories with a byline do not necessarily represent the opinions of Metro or the Metro Council. Metro news is committed to transparency, fairness and accuracy. 

"Regions need new ways to quickly and efficiently move commuters, and bus rapid transit is a competitive option for doing just that, according to a consultant giving a presentation at the Metro Regional Center on Tuesday.

Tim Bevan, a consultant for CH2M HILL and an expert on bus rapid transit, or BRT, talked about the ways BRT has been used around the world to serve transit riders. 

During his presentation, Bevan evaluated some existing BRT systems in the US, going over implementation strategies and what works well in different settings.

Bevan said BRT's advantages versus rail transit include flexibility of routes and lower cost. Dedicating a lane exclusively to buses and implementing an off-board ticketing system can streamline BRT service to closely mimic rail transit and reap similar benefits, Bevan said.

There are also techniques for incorporating BRT into existing streets, including designating some lanes as turn- or bus- only, or allowing parking in BRT lanes during off-peak hours."