Continuing the discussion

Cory over at Lose an Eye put together a great recap of the recently hot transit discussion that’s been taking place amongst the Houston blog scene. Thanks for the links, Cory.

Briefly, I wanted to offer my thoughts on two of his statements.

Cory asked:

Why is it that the same people who are opposed to this visual clutter:
Take no issue with this visual clutter?

That’s a good point. I think the arguement is something like this: generally, when an LRT type system using overhead wires is put in the street is totally rebuilt. This usually includes a significant relocation of utilities underground. You usually end up with nice, new light poles, and electric that’s partially underground, with the necessary overhead components integrated into the LRT’s overhead power cable. So, in general, the visual clutter seems less, and what aerial cables and stuff are in place are better maintained.

But the real appeal lies in the kinds of places that tend to get build near transit stations, and I think most people are happy to trade a little bit of cable clutter for a nicer ‘everything else’. Still, you make a very good point. People need to pick their battles, so to speak.

As for the BRT… I think that Houston certainly could use a smart BRT system. I picture this being most effective on major thoroughfares that are for one reason or another not well suited for any kind of rail transit. As it’s configured today, Westhiemer and Montrose are solid candidates for a BRT corridor. If it were nice, if it were well designed, if it offered frequent and reliable service, it would be a big boost for the overall transit equation in Houston.

The drawback of BRT is, however, that it’s pretty tough for busses to run efficiently without their own ROW. If you’re going to put something in its own ROW you’ve basically just built a train anyway, regardless of what fuel it’s using.

Lastly, premium bus services don’t have the permanence of rail investments, so they usually don’t attract the kind of private development activity that rail does. That’s not a reason *not* to do them, especially in corridors that are already well developed. However, this is often a reason to favor rail over BRT in corridors that are under-developed given their otherwise prime location and infrastructure.

The debate is totally valid, though. BRT is under-appreciated in most of the US, but I think it will become more useful, and more often used, as the overall availability and quality of transit service in the country continues to increase.