Build A BRT — Lose Re-election Bid
[Correction: Enrique Peñalosa did not get booted from office - he only did not win his 'comeback re-election attempt' last year, after several years out of office. My bad - my mistake - my apologies. Title and text changes follow. Thanks to commenters for pointing out my mistake.
Rules prevent re-election to two consecutive terms. I changed the title of this post - the original was 'Build A BRT -- Get Booted From Office.' It is now titled, 'Build A BRT -- Lose Re-election bid.'
The implication of the original post, however, still holds - did Enrique's building of a BRT instead of an LRT contribute to his re-election loss? The comments suggest 'no,' but I remain unconvinced.
Stated another way, how was the creator of this incredible piece of Bogotá infrastructure not able to secure his re-election? Around the world, and in Bogota and Columbia, we're told, the Transmilenio BRT is heralded as 'the future of transportation.' BRT proponents regularly adorn Transmilenio and Bogotá and Enrique and BRT, in general, with all manner of beneficent superlatives. Transmilenio has put Bogotá and Columbia in the news, and for 'a good thing.' The Transmilenio BRT is some kind of national treasure, we're supposed to believe. And yet its creator could not get re-elected for Mayor.
These things happen sometimes - in politics, in life. Winston Churchill got booted from office right after he helped fight off the Nazis. Then again, Churchill was a bit of a racist, which allowed him to advocate for things like chemical warfare against 'uncivilised tribes' and for trying to keep the population of India subjugated to English rule.
So advocating for BRT over rail is not quite as bad as these things, but telling the people of San Francisco and the world that BRT will set us free from transit problems - or that we don't deserve the best transit possible because it is too expensive - seems more than a little bit hollow, and very very wrong.]
That’s what happened to Enrique Peñalosa - the creator of Bogotá’s famed (or infamous) Transmilenio BRT.
And not only did Enrique get booted from office lose his re-election bid, he got booted lost unceremoniously - losing from his incumbency position by 15 percent.
He has not, so far as I know, ever attempted to run for office again.
I am not a professor of political science, so I do not know how much, or even if, building that BRT got Enrique booted from office contributed to Enrique’s failed re-election bid, but it was one of his major projects while in office, so it might be a concern for any politician hoping to at least stay in office, if not reach for higher office.
Jaime Lerner, the godfather of BRT - who built the original BRT, Rede Integrada de Transporte, in Curitiba, Brazil almost 40 years ago - seems to be doing OK. He’s got a website - the English-language version is not done yet. He’s been on UN panels and whatnot. He gave an awesome TED talk that everyone should see, where he sings the ‘Sustainable Cities Song‘.
And yet, I can’t help but wonder what Curitiba and Bogotá might be like today if they had originally built LRT systems instead of BRT systems. At least Enrique Peñalosa seems to have had that chance.
To those of us about to have BRT forced upon us, here’s our future:
Does this picture make anyone else sad, frightened, angry?
[image: Wikimedia Commons / Luan Lenon]
…In an earlier post, I mentioned that the one-time Mayor of Seoul went on to become President of Korea. While Mayor, he tore down a highway and built some kind of BRT-type functionality into the bus system. I’m really not sure to what extent BRT was implemented, but it’s something to note. If he did BRT big, and still went on to become President, it would hurt my theory that building BRTs hurts one’s chances of re-election and/or reaching higher office.
Leave comment (6)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
October 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I don’t like BRT either, but I don’t think that was the reason for his ousting. You could also say that he’s car free days where everyone cycled got him kicked out then.
November 1st, 2008 at 2:51 am
The reasons why I lost elections last year, 7 years after I left office (immediate reelection for mayors is not permitted by the Colombian Constitution) are not important for this discussion. For BRT promotion purposes you can know that at the end of my term as mayor I had the hightest positive image a Bogota mayor has ever left office with.
More important is that other mayors from other parties continued expanding TransMilenio after I left. And there are 7 Colombian cities building BRTs at this moment. 22% of TransMilenio users are car owners (21% of Bogota homes own cars) as opposed to practically none of Mexico City subway riders. Mexico City is building 8 BRT lines.
BRT moves more passengers than a tram, at higher speeds and much lower costs. It can be made practically as sexy with public space (including protected bicycleways and parking) a few marketing tools such as color, name and so on.
When buses appeared trams dissappeared and not just because of the bad guys at General Motors and the old story we all know. Buses have many advantages. What is important is HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE A GREAT PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM THAT COVERS A WHOLE CITY given certain investment and operating costs limitations.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am
Actually, what this post claims is not true. In Colombia and in Bogota there is not reelection for mayors; it is forbidden in the Constitution. Only for President we have reelection now, and this only as of 2006. Mr Penalosa left office en December 31st 2000 with the highest ratings for a Mayor in Bogota ever. It is true that he ran for Mayor last year and lost… a very well managed libel campaign and a few campaign promises not completely truthful might have had a lot to do with it. TransMilenio today carries 1.4 million people everyday. It should be even better, but no Mayor after Mr Penalosa has done anything to make it better…
November 1st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I think this post was a bit unfair on a few levels. I’ll let the Penalosa comments stand (as he explains above).
As for the BRT-bashing… we have buses– why not make proper signals and get them running more efficiently?
Light Rail costs many times more per mile than BRT- while I agree a world-class transportation system is important, we should be working to reduce cost. (see: GAO numbers in Footnote 1: http://www.bottineaupartnership.org/improving/LRTv.BRT.php )
Light Rail is also not as agile– with the amount of marches, parades, Critical Mass, etc. in this city, Light Rail systems do not provide the necessary re-routing possibilities we need.
BRT is not being ‘forced upon us’ in SF. It’s impossible to please everyone in Urban Planning in a major city but this has gone through all the public planning processes and comment periods and has been fully vetted.
Finally, since this is a bike blog, BRT is good for bikes- improving Muni’s efficiency will hopefully reduce VMT. Especially Geary, so it reduces Richmond folks from driving downtown, or taking the Bay Bridge because they’ll have a quality connection to BART.
BRT will also create dedicated lanes and reduce stops, which means less leapfrogging Muni…
November 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
As for the BRT-bashing, we have buses, why not make proper signals and get them running more efficiently?
Amen. Let’s make the buses run more efficiently, reliably, etc. But let’s first make pedestrian and bicycle access possible. Once we do that, then we can look at all this incredibly disruptive and expensive stuff. I’ll make some specific policy recommendations in an upcoming post in a day or so - that way people can try to tear about my wacky ideas.
Light Rail costs many times more per mile than BRT
This may be true if we look at just construction costs. Long-term BRT operating expenses are much costlier than LRT - especially if the BRT actually gets some ridership. More on this in a later post.
Light Rail is also not as agile
True, and I plan on dismantling ‘the flexibility argument’ in a future post.
BRT is not being ‘forced upon us’ in SF.
This may just be a matter of opinion or perspective. There is very little ‘anti-BRT’ material available, and with the blessing of the Federal Government and star-struck planners, and few if any real-world operating BRTs in the United States, citizens have nothing to check all these BRT claims against. It’s the word of our betters - the planning population (which has an amazing track record in the U.S.) - against, so far, mostly pro-car people and small merchants who are being told ‘not to worry, everything will be OK.’
I am part of a newish contingent of pro-bicycle, pro-walking, pro-Livable Streets people who see BRT for what it is - an anti-pedestrian, anti-bike transit system with potentially disastrous consequences. After these first few BRTs fail and/or middle-along, we’ll be able to have a more rational discussion of these things, because BRT proponents won’t be able to hide behind the ‘genius’ of far-away BRTs in foreign countries - BRTs that operate under radically different conditions.
BRT is good for bikes
I’ve heard a couple of folks say this, and I remain unconvinced. Even Andy Thornley of the SFBC says he/they support BRT on Geary. The only thing I can make of SFBC support for this BRT - or anyone else who considers themselves bike or walk proponents - is that they think the risk of either doing nothing, or of advocating for real transit (LRT), is doomed to failure, because of initial capital costs, or whatever. But that’s just a guess. The thinking is, I think, that this proposal to build ‘a bus highway within a highway’ is a surefire way to take some private cars off the road - because there will just be less room dedicated to private cars, and that, some people believe, is enough to justify the BRT. I disagree. If any mode of transit should have separated, dedicated lanes, it should be bicycles, of course. I’ll detail this proposal in a post, soon.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Let’s define BRT in relation to the Geary plan. It’s rather different than the very long Bogota system- which is really more of a highway bus system in my mind…
All BRT is (In the Geary Plan):
- Computerized traffic lights that change based on approaching buses
- Exclusive Bus Lane
They usually include (NOT IN GEARY PLAN):
- Off-bus fare collection
- Grade-level entrances
- Sometimes physically separated bus lane.
As for ‘light rail’ costs– I’d like to see numbers to back up your claim that ‘Light Rail’ is less expensive to maintain. When crunching those numbers, be sure to include cost of re-laying tracks every 10-20 years. Or re-routing (hopefully for bike improvements!) and having to tear up and re-lay tracks (something we’re facing on Ocean Ave. currently). Or the specific parts needed for the trains (note BART’s 4 foot, 8 1/2 inch track width = $$$) rather than just, say, tires.
All that said, quality transportation shouldn’t be dictated by costs. Quality should be first and foremost. Also, worth noting: your comment about ‘if LRT gets ridership’– the majority of transportation funding does NOT come from farebox collections, so that will have little impact on any cost estimates. (Besides, all public transit should be free…)
As for the numbers of systems currently in use, this list of 50 projects in N. America (40 in US): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems#North_America shows there are more than a ‘few’ and they are not ‘far away’ (AC Transit 72, for one).
And I think you are making a false dichotomy here- should there be physically separated dedicate bike lanes? Of course. But that doesn’t make BRT or a Seperated Bus Lane an anti-bike/anti-ped position. As for your newish group against BRT, the site you linked to includes some of the top Transportation Experts in the Bay- SPUR, TALC, WalkSF, too… I hope you all are ready for some serious debate with some really smart folks who know their stuff..!
I think the reason LRT is often appealing is a class (and inherently race)-based argument. That ‘poor people’ ride the bus, but rich people take ‘trains’– I think the Embarcadero is a clear example of reinforcing that notion, as well as why the T 3rd was built for all the yuppies moving into the SoMA condos over the next decade… they didn’t want to share a bus with BVHP…
…looking forward to your followup and I hope my input helps in your crafting.
Also, by Tuesday, we’ll see if your theory of electoral impact holds true depending on who wins in Honolulu- the challenger (KobayashI) is proposing an alternative (1/2 the cost) BRT plan to the current Mayor’s ‘Light Rail’ system.