Vote No on Clark County Commissioners' Advisory Vote #2!

On August 6, 2013, Clark County Commissioners approved an "advisory vote" for Bus Rapid Transit for the November 5 ballot.  This advisory vote states:   "Should the Clark County Board of Commissioners approve proposed Resolution 2013-07-19 which opposes every Bus Rapid Transit project in Clark County unless it is first supported by a majority of the voters in a county-wide advisory vote of the people?


So, let's ask ourselves a couple of questions:

1. Why single out BRT for advisory votes?  Why not vote on highway, bike lane, sidewalk, or even paving projects?

Here at BRT central we just don't get it.  We (being us supporters as well as C-TRAN staff) have created a strong business case for the Fourth Plain BRT project.  It will only be built with 80% of the funds coming from the federal government.  The local match (the remaining 20%) can be paid out of grant money and C-TRAN's existing reserve funds.  When completed, it will save C-TRAN almost $900,000 a year in operating costs on the corridor which can be reinvested in service elsewhere in C-TRAN's system.  All of this can be done with existing tax dollars; no new taxes required!

Construction work will employ over 200 local jobs, giving our local economy a boost.  Station area and other improvements are an investment of almost $40 million in infrastructure along the corridor.  BRT has been proven to attract economic development and with it, family wage jobs.  The transit improvements provide long-term (20 years or more) of transit capacity, which means we don't need to keep coming back every couple of years and adding buses, rebuilding broken shelters, etc.  And a major safety and security improvement in a corridor desperate for something to attack the crime problems occurring along the corridor.

There are many transportation projects that cost much more than the Fourth Plain BRT project:  West Vancouver Freight Access Project ($275 million), Salmon Creek Interchange Project ($133 million), SR 14 corridor improvements in Camas and Washougal ($100 million), I-205 improvements from Mill Plain to Burton Road (almost $100 million), and others.  Why don't the County Commissioners want advisory votes on these projects?  Other than the Freight Access Project, none of these other projects provide a cost savings of $900,000 a year.  The BRT return on investment is unmatched.

Here's something else to consider: the local funding needed for BRT, $6 million, is the same amount of money the County spends each year on ... pothole repair!  So, we should request an advisory vote on pothole repair, right?

The only thing we can figure is that two of the county commissioners are philosophically opposed to any mass transit project.  Fair enough.  Why not just come out and say that, instead of pretending they are listening to the people?  Why don't they just make those decisions at the C-TRAN Board meeting, like we elect (and pay) them to do?  Why are they wasting our precious tax dollars on wasteful advisory votes?  And what happens if the majority of "the people" actually do vote down Advisory Vote #2 - will Commissioners Madore and Mielke respect "the vote of the people"?

Let's find out!  
Just vote NO on Clark County Advisory Vote #2!

2. The County recently cut its popular Watershed Stewards program to save money.  Couldn't they have used the $107,000 cost of these advisory votes to pay for the Watershed Stewards?

Yes.  Even though the Watershed Stewards program was funded out of the County's Clean Water Program, the County Commissioners could have chosen to spend General Fund money, the same fund paying for these advisory votes, to cover the cost of the Watershed Stewards program.  They chose instead to fund six advisory, non-binding votes.  So instead of funding a program made up mostly of volunteers to help make our water clean, we get advisory votes.  So ask yourself - what future important and popular programs will be cut when the commissioners decide to do more non-binding advisory votes rather than do what we're already paying them to do, make decisions?

3. What is Resolution 2013-07-19 anyway?

There are two resolutions at play here.  Resolution 2013-07-20, approved by the Commissioners, put the advisory vote on the ballot with a bunch of "Because" statements.  Essentially we are spending thousands of dollars on advisory votes (money that could be going to law enforcement, keeping up parks, maintaining our roads, protecting our quality of life) because why?  Well, "Because".  Anyway, the advisory vote is whether or not the commissioners should adopt Resolution 2013-07-19, which opposes Bus Rapid Transit unless every single BRT project is approved by a majority of "the people" in a countywide advisory vote.  Nevermind if the project pays for itself, can be done without raising taxes, and isn't even in the jurisdiction of the county commissioners anyway (the Fourth Plain BRT project is fully contained within the City of Vancouver, with no portion of that project being in unincorporated Clark County).


We are providing our analysis of Resolution 2013-07-19 on a separate web page here.  Look on the set of tabs to the right side of this page and click on "Facts About 2013-07-19".

We trust that when you read through that analysis, you will agree with us that this is a ridiculous advisory vote and the resolution itself is based on mis-statements, exaggerations, and out-of-date information that certain County Commissioners are using to spread fear about, well, enhanced buses.

Please VOTE NO on Clark County Advisory Vote #2.

Read More

Why Do We Need Bus Rapid Transit on Fourth Plain?

If you've ridden C-TRAN's Fourth Plain service Route 4 on a regular basis, we're sure you have experienced the following:

• Buses arriving to your stop at least 5-10 minutes late
• Full buses, with nowhere to sit
• Crowded aisles that make it difficult to board or leave the bus
• Waiting for a Route 4 bus for a long time and then have two Route 4 buses show up, back to back (known as "bus bunching")
• Stops taking several minutes due to passengers paying cash fares, boarding or unboarding of wheelchairs or bikes (or both), or having to wait for a gap in traffic to reenter Fourth Plain
• Long delays at several intersections, as buses wait in the line of traffic to get through
• Having to climb stairs, especially difficult when you are injured or mobility impaired
• Unattractive, older buses with very dark windows
• Being late for work, an appointment, or picking your kids up from school or daycare.

These problems exist and they happen not only on a daily basis, but many times throughout the day, even on weekends.  Adding more buses just means that more buses will be stuck in traffic, bunching up together, and being delayed.  That adds to frustration for Route 4 riders, as well as taxpayers who keep being asked for more taxes to provide more bus service. 

We have a better option - Bus Rapid Transit or BRT.  BRT is a modern, world-class transit service that uses attractive, articulated buses with level boarding.  The buses have about twice the capacity as current Route 4 buses, and will actually run more frequently.  They will have multiple doors, each one allowing for boarding and unboarding.  With level boarding and multiple doors, stops that now take 3-5 minutes can be completed in 15-20 seconds.  Delayed buses will be a thing of the past.  Stations will be rebuilt with lighting and other security systems.  Station areas will have new streetscape to make them and their surrounding area much more attractive than they are now.  If you need to pay cash, you can buy a ticket at a vending machine before the bus gets there. 

If you've ever ridden Portland's MAX light rail system, these buses will remind you of something looking like light rail on tires.  BRT is flexible in this case because, well, it's a bus, and if the right traffic lane is blocked or closed, the bus can go around it in the left lane.  A train can't change lanes.

C-TRAN indicates they can build BRT on Fourth Plain with most of the funding coming from federal grants, and the local funding match coming out of other grants and C-TRAN's existing reserves.  No tax increase necessary.

With BRT, Fourth Plain riders will save 8-10 minutes per trip along the entire corridor.  That is enough to be able to turn buses around at each end of the trip more frequently, which in turn means C-TRAN will need fewer buses to operate BRT.  C-TRAN's costs to operate transit on the Fourth Plain Corridor will actually go down, to the tune of almost $900,000 a year.  That is the equivalent of 4-5 buses, which can be re-deployed elsewhere in C-TRAN's system, on routes that need new service or more frequent service.  That will, as well, eliminate the need for future tax increase requests from C-TRAN.   It just makes "cents".

If you want more information, we suggest you read through our website here, or check C-TRAN's BRT website at www.c-tran.com/brt.  We are NOT affiliated with C-TRAN - we are an independent, grass roots group.  Please read on for much more information.

Read More

Bendy Bus Safety

Our opponents have called into question the safety of 60-foot articulated buses, otherwise known across the Pond as "bendy buses".  They are claiming that articulated buses are unsafe, and are being removed from service all around the world.

Problem is, not only are they safe, but they are being added into service all around the world!  In the US alone, in the past year, ten or more new BRT lines, most of them using 60-foot articulated buses, have come on-line.  If there's a safety problem here, why are more being added?  Because, there is no safety problem!

The only issue we can find, according to Wikipedia, is that articulated buses were removed from service in London, England a couple of years ago.  This may have been more political than due to a quantified safety problem, because the mayor got elected with removing these buses being part of his platform:  "... these safety statistics may be partly skewed due to the buses having been used on the busiest routes in the most crowded areas of the city, so making them look worse than the buses they were being compared with".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_bus.

They also pulled up some photos of articulated buses being stuck in major snowstorms.  Well, aren't we all?  Remember the five-hour commutes being reported in Portland a couple of years ago with the surprise blizzard that hit the region?  It wasn't just buses that were caught.

We've conducted our own research and can find nothing that indicates articulated buses are any more hazardous than fixed-route, 40-foot-type coaches which C-TRAN currently operates on Fourth Plain and other routes. 

We used Google searches for these keywords in our research: “Bus Rapid Transit” “Articulated Buses” “Safety” “Research” along with a separate search for “articulated buses” “known safety issues”.  

The reports we read are cited below, along with weblinks, if you want to take the time to do your own research:

·        “Design Treatments for Bicycles and Buses on Arterial and Collector Roads”, Stephanie McNeely and Garrett Donaher.  http://www.ite.org/annualmeeting/compendium10/pdf/AB10H3103.pdf.

·        “Bicycle/Bus Conflict Area Study”, Gregory R. Krykewycz, PP, AICP.  http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2010/NATMEC/Krykewycz.pdf and ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/Documents/Research/Complete%20Projects/Reducing%20Fatalities/Bicycle%20Bus%20Area%20Conflict%20Study.pdf.

·        Tri-Met: “Sharing the Road Safely: Important safety reminders for cyclists”, http://trimet.org/howtoride/bikes/safetytips.htm.

·        FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation”.  http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/pdf/swless124.pdf.

·        “FHWA-RD-99–034: A Comparative Analysis of Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Final Report”, William W. Hunter, J. Richard Stewart, Jane C. Stutts, Herman H. Huang, and Wayne E. Pein.  http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/99034/99034.pdf.

·        “APTA BTS-BRT-RP-002-10, Bus Rapid Transit Stations and Stops”. http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/Bus_Published/002_RP_BRT_Stations.pdf.

·        “Safety of Pedestrians and Cyclists in Urban Areas”, European Transport Safety Council.  http://www.etsc.eu/oldsite/pedestrian.pdf.

·        “Evaluation Of Alternative Pedestrian Traffic Control Devices”, Katharine Hunter-Zaworski, P.E, Ph.D. and Jon Mueller. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/2012/SPR721pedreport.pdf?ga=t.

·        “TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide”.  http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/tools/tod/tool-tcrp-bus-rapid-transit.pdf.

Read More

Mall Park-and-Ride?

The blog Prop 1 Facts has a page on BRT.  Well, if you can call it that.  It talks mostly about C-TRAN's regular bus system.  Most peculiar is a reference, and a photo, to what they are trying to make you believe is a Vancouver Mall Park-and-Ride.  Check it out at http://prop1facts.com/BRT/.

The problem?  Well, problems, in fact.  First, nowhere on C-TRAN's bus system map or rider information web page does it show the Mall as a park-and-ride.  You see, park-and-rides on the system map (http://c-tran.com/system-map.html) show a big P where there are park-and-rides.  At the Mall?  A big T, for transit center.  In every dictionary we've consulted, P does not equal T.  Yet these project opponents keep trying to fool you into believing no one rides the Fourth Plain routes because they keep showing a picture of an empty Mall parking area and claim that no one is using it.

That's because IT'S NOT A PARK-AND-RIDE.

We've talked with Mall security.  If they see a transit customer wandering around off of the platform, they will ask that person (or persons) to go back to the platform.  If they see someone parking there with the intent of taking the bus, they will kindly ask that someone to go to a legitimate C-TRAN park-and-ride (see the P on the system map),  They will also point to the signs in the parking area, somewhat visible in the Prop 1 "Facts" photo, that say that parking is for Mall customers and employees only.  NOT A PARK-AND-RIDE.

These people keep trying to fool you with some conjecture.  Where do they get these ideas? 

Read More

Wheelchairs and Bikes and BRT

Claim: bus stopped times on Fourth Plain aren't that long, even with wheelchairs and bikes.  All you need to do is add more buses and that will fix the problem.

Fact: it takes up to 3-5 minutes to board a wheelchair with current buses.  

Boarding a wheelchair involves the driver getting out and back into their seat, the wheelchair rider using the lift, and the driver securing the wheelchair on the bus.  There is no way that this can physically be done in less than 2-3 minutes.  And add to that the 2-3 times a month where a wheelchair rider can't board because the wheelchair bays are full.

Fact: it takes up to 2 minutes for a bicycle rider to board the bus.

This involves the bicycle rider walking into the street in front of the bus to mount their bike, and then returning to pay their fare and board.

C-TRAN has indicated some stops can take upwards of 5 to 7 minutes EACH.  Multiply a few minutes per stop by about 25 stops each way on the route, and you can see how much time the bus is NOT MOVING.

BRT solves this.  With level boarding, wheelchair riders can roll right onto the bus, and park themselves.  They become self-reliant, which is what most of them want in the first place: to be treated like any other rider.  Bicyclists can roll their bike onto the bus and put it in the on-board bike rack. Buses will run every 10 minutes during most of a typical weekday.  This increases wheelchair and bike parking capacity by as much as 33 percent.

BRT takes LESS THAN 20 SECONDS PER STOP.  This can save 8 to 10 minutes PER RUN.  That's a substantial time savings and improvement in reliability.  It benefits everyone.  Reliable bus travel times and ability to make connections.  Less time stopped in traffic.  More transit capacity for those who need, and for those who choose, to use transit.

Read More

Let's Bust Another Fear

FEAR: BRT will drain the economy and destroy our local business.
 
FACT: BRT has clear potential to positively improve business along Fourth Plain. 

The US Government Accountability Office published a report in July 2012, “Bus Rapid Transit Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to
Economic Development”. The study concluded, “In general, we found that project sponsors and other stakeholders in each of our five case study locations
believe that the BRT project is having some positive effect on economic development”.

Read More