Problems With BRT: Part 1 of…Many
Problem: Building BRT systems without also providing adequate space for walking and bicycling improvements places non-sustainable forms of transit above sustainable forms of transit.
The above photo is from Curitiba, Brazil. We have to ask ourselves, is this what we want the streets of San Francisco to look like? Is this what we’d rather have instead light rail systems, or dedicated bike lanes?
In an earlier post, I suggested that buses were not my favorite thing, and by implication, that is part of why bus rapid transit (BRT) was not one of my favorite things, either.
My opposition to BRT will not ‘derail’ it (thank you), but it will hopefully help to promote sensible discussion about its role in our transportation mix. With very few if any real BRT implementations available for study in the United States - including the long-term effects of BRT and the long-term consequences of building BRT systems vs. light rail systems - I feel that our rush into building multiple BRT systems in San Francisco and all over the Bay Area all at the same time is a highly dubious policy that could lead to disastrous results - for bicycling, sustainability, and livability.
And if and when BRT comes to town in a huge way, we walking and biking advocates will need to do everything we can to ensure we get as much space for walking and biking as possible. With BRT systems, there really is no room for anything else, but we’ll have to do our best anyway, and that will mean working together whether we think BRT, in general, is a good thing or bad thing. It seems the citizens of Bogota were able to extract some very small concessions for bicyclists and pedestrians, and we need to follow their lead, and even try to do better.
Consider me as now being on record as opposing BRT.
I am opposed to BRT, in general, and for at least the specific designs I’ve seen for East Bay BRT, and from what little I’ve seen of the Geary and Van Ness BRT systems, I oppose them, too.
If I felt that BRT would not affect the bicycling community in significant, negative ways, I wouldn’t spend any more time on it, but that, I fear, is not the case. And since book-length criticisms of anything are boring, I figured a video I found from a pro-transit, anti-BRT group in Jacksonville, Florida would best express my visceral reaction to BRT when I first heard about it - and it is still my reaction to BRT today [and it's got a catchy (and-funny-in-this-context) tune that some of you may know -- "I fly like paper..."]:
I don’t know the details of Jacksonville’s push to get BRT instead of meaningful transit (light rail), but the video above, no matter how contrived, shows how anti-human motorized traffic can be - in particular buses. It seems to me that we are promoting BRTs over and instead of pedestrian and bicycle transportation, and that is wrong. We should implement our most sustainable forms of transportation, as much as is possible, first.
And if and when we implement non-sustainable forms of transport, we should do so as a last resort only, and these non-sustainable forms of transport should not have any adverse effects, as much as is possible, on sustainable forms of transport. Simply put, BRT appears to be a disaster for pedestrians and cyclists, especially in urban/downtown/core environments.
San Francisco (16,380/sq mi) is 50% more dense than either Bogota (10,137.1/sq mi) or Curitiba (10,748.5/sq mi). To proponents of BRT, that probably means BRT will be an even bigger success here in San Francisco. To me, it means that BRT will be even more effective in injuring and killing pedestrians and bikers, more effective in creating impenetrable urban edges and vacuums, and even more effective in preventing the proper development of walking and biking infrastructure.
I’m on record. Are you?
[photo: Flickr / weihsiu]
…I updated this post and just picked one of the many problems of BRT to highlight at the top - the prioritization of non-sustinable transit over sustainable transit. Since I’m going to make an ongoing list of all the problems with BRT, I wanted to point specifically to exactly one problem with BRT in this post. More fun to come.
Leave comment (2)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
October 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
And no matter what happens, any BRT proposal must face 900 days’ worth of EIR delays–right?
October 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
i need to get the details on EIR - i heard SFBC was working with some folks to change regulations/laws that would somehow preempt EIR for certain types of streetscape changes/improvements. i think it might all be a bit top-secret at this point, and it may even be a figment of my imagination.
one question that will continue to come up - would people like me - who may be few - oppose light rail development as we oppose BRT? I would not generally oppose light rail, and might even work hard to make it happen.
then again, i’m not going to go out of my way to oppose BRT - i’m just not lending my unqualified support, and i’m doing some edumacation for myself and others who may be interested.
as to the alleged impossibility of light rail development - i’m calling shenanigans. for every city and town in america trying to destroy their streetscape with BRT (Oakland/Berkeley, San Francisco), there seems to be another that is trying to improve their streetscape with light rail (Somerville/Boston, Denver, etc.).
unfortunately, with the inferiority of BRT compared to light rail, we’re sure to see continuing opposition to it - from ballot initiatives, EIRs, and whatever else people can think of.