Who says Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) can’t spur development? I know I’m probably in the minority, but I think a combination of attractive stations, modern vehicles, and real-time arrival information would be nearly as effective as a streetcar at spuring transit oriented development (TOD). I assume there would be cost savings associated with not building the tracks and overhead catenary wire. Maybe that savings would be enough to run the route all the way to OSU?
Euclid Corridor project helps drive $4 billion in Cleveland development
by Steven Litt / Plain Dealer Architecture Critic
Sunday February 10, 2008, 12:00 AMAmid all the bad news about Cleveland’s economy, one big, positive number is sure to impress all but the most hardened cynics: $4.3 billion. That’s how much fresh investment — conservatively speaking — is being poured into the four-mile-long strip of land flanking Euclid Avenue, the city’s Main Street, between Public Square and University Circle.
…Private developers with proven records as doers, not speculators, are gearing up to start projects worth more than $1 billion along the corridor in the next five years or so. They include Douglas Price III, Nathan Zaremba, Ari and Richard Maron, and Gordon Priemer.
The amounts they and nonprofit institutions are investing will easily dwarf the money spent by government and partners in the 1990s on sports stadiums and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.
One big reason for the energy is the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s $200 million Euclid Corridor project, which is reshaping Euclid Avenue around a bus rapid transit line.
…Planning literature is packed with proof that streetcars and light rail inspire “transit-oriented development.” So far, it seems, bus rapid transit is doing the same in Cleveland.
The $4.3 billion figure cited above is based on news stories and interviews with developers. It doesn’t include the $200 million Euclid Corridor project itself. Nor does it include projects such as developer Scott Wolstein’s upcoming $400 million redevelopment on the east bank of the Flats, or Robert Stark’s proposed $1.5 billion development in the Warehouse District.
Nevertheless, the numbers are adding up quickly as momentum builds.
“Every day, more projects are being planned,” Goldberg said. “At a certain point, you reach a critical mass and it becomes self-sustaining.”
“I assume there would be cost savings associated with not building the tracks and overhead catenary wire.”
Small capital cost savings.
Most of the cost in a major project is “civil engineering” (bridges and tunnels). After that, stations cost a fortune. (Rail stations cost very slightly less than comparable-quality BRT stations because they require less land.) Then there’s the large cost of vehicles: this is lower initially for buses than rail, but the lifetime of the buses is much shorter. The remaining capital costs are pretty small compared to the above.
But big operating cost losses.
When there are enough passengers to fill a modern streetcar, buses cost a lot more to operate each year than the comparable train. (When there are relatively few passengers, of course, the bus is cheaper).
Also, the well-known and documented passenger “rail bias”, where replacing an identical-quality bus service with a service on tracks increases ridership, is pretty important in terms of filling those seats.
So, basically, *if* there are enough riders projected to justify a modern streetcar, and *if* you can come up with the initial capital, you’re going to save money in the long run by putting the tracks in.
“Maybe that savings would be enough to run the route all the way to OSU?”
That “savings” will be eaten up in a couple of years by the relatively larger operating costs.
That’s not to say that BRT is bad. I’m sure it does spur TOD, and better bus service is certainly great; but it’s essentially a *more expensive* alternative to a streetcar. If it makes the difference between popular support and lack thereof (unlikely since people in most places prefer trains), go for the BRT. If it makes the difference between federal funding and lack thereof (rather likely these days), go for the BRT. If your transit authority has a whole pile of high-quality, good-condition buses sitting unused (but doesn’t own any train shops or equipment) that would certainly be a good reason to go for the BRT (economies of scale with the existing infrastructure). But don’t be fooled into thinking it’s “cheaper” just because less of the cost is upfront and more of the cost is in the future.
More development along Euclid in Cleveland:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/06/09/cleveland_hotel.html?sid=101
[…] has already counted more than $4.3 Billion in investment along the Euclid Corridor, and the line hasn’t even opened yet. Even land values in the depressed mid-town/Fairfax […]
$197 Million project cost yields $3.3 Billion in development
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/clevelands_euclid_corridor_pro.html