Dulles Rail - erroneous claims made by rightwing rail promoter Paul Weyrich (ARGUMENT)
Posted Sun, 2008-03-02 22:19
Paul Weyrich gets space in the Washington Post this morning (Mar 2 B08) with erroneous objections to road based transit in the Dulles Toll Road/Greenway corridor.
Weyrich's claims are quoted in full followed by answers (A)
1. "It would not be possible for bus rapid transit BRT) to serve Tysons Corner effectively without building a grade-separated right of way, which would cost as much as the 23-mile extension of the Orange Line, but with much less capacity."
A. Certainly a busway or tired transitway would need to be grade separated but this is less expensive than rail because pavement is cheaper than rails and their switching and signals, and because horizontal and vertical curvatures can be greater.
Actually bus has potentially greater capacity than rail because bus headways can be much closer allowing 800
buses per hour per lane x 40 seats (32,000 seats) compared to trains at 2 minute headways - 30 trains of 8 cars with say 80 seats (19,200 seats). The Exclusive Bus Lane at the Lincoln Tunnel NY-NJ has been running the numbers cited for BRT potential for many years.
Even the theoretical rail capacity of trains at 2 minute headways on the new Dulles Line could not be achieved because Orange Line trains would join Dulles trains at West Falls Church and Blue Line trains would be added at Rosslyn. Ten trains per hour (6,400) would strain capacity given the bottlenecks.
Capacity is a red herring because projected passenger loads are a fraction of these numbers.
(2) "Operating buses in Tysons to circulate riders would be slow and unattractive to commuters."
A. If BRT had four Tysons stops as planned for rail, then circulation beyond the stations would be similar. But BRT could be given on and off ramps from the mainline. Then buses could enter and depart the BRT mainline and go door to door greatly improving circulation over rail. Such a BRT setup would be more attractive and require fewer transfers/shuttles than rail.
(3) "Bus rapid transit would require a transfer to the Orange Line at the West Falls Church Metro Station, significantly adding travel time."
A. Not necessarily. BRT could be connected to HOT lanes on the Beltway and could use 66 to DC in a new managed lane. An alternative would be to build Metrorail West Falls Church to Tysons and terminate it there at an intermodal center. Buses will be much faster than rail because unlike rail they do not need to stop at each station along the mainline. Bus can be operated express since buses can pass one another at stops.
(4) "While the cost of building rail in the Dulles corridor would be greater, the operating costs would be lower. (An eight-car Metro train can comfortably carry 1,000 passengers with one operator. It would take 16 buses to handle this volume, each bus requiring a driver.)"
A. It is true that operator/driver costs are higher per thousand seats for buses than for trains. But that is more than offset by higher costs of other expenses for trains - costs of control rooms, maintenance of the rail, switching and power systems, ticketing, policing and maintenance and replacement of rolling stock are all much more expensive rail operating costs.
(5) "Finally, buses would not be an attractive alternative to driving a car. The Dulles corridor is an affluent area with two or more cars in each household. The experience nationally has been that rail encourages people to ride transit. Buses would not."
A. Neither rail nor bus will be an attractive alternative to driving a car for most trips in the corridor. The convenience, privacy, door-to-door, go-when-you-are-ready characteristics of the private car will never be matched by any kind of transit for most trips. However for the minority of trips not made by private car the variety of vehicles that can be run on pavement - different sizes of buses, minibuses, minivans, limos, cabs - and their ability to depart the mainline and pass when they want to run express will provide a much more attractive service overall than rail. Buses and other tired vehicles can be adapted much more readily to passenger convenience and comfort than rail cars.
There is no experience rail encourages people to ride transit. On the contrary massive expenditures on new rail transit have been accompanied by continued declines in transit's mode share.
TOLLROADSnews 2008-03-02
Paul Weyrich gets space in the Washington Post this morning (Mar 2 B08) with erroneous objections to road based transit in the Dulles Toll Road/Greenway corridor. Weyrich's claims are quoted in full followed by answers (A)
1. "It would not be possible for bus rapid transit BRT) to serve Tysons Corner effectively without building a grade-separated right of way, which would cost as much as the 23-mile extension of the Orange Line, but with much less capacity."
A. Certainly a busway or tired transitway would need to be grade separated but this is less expensive than rail because pavement is cheaper than rails and their switching and signals, and because horizontal and vertical curvatures can be greater.
Actually bus has potentially greater capacity than rail because bus headways can be much closer allowing 800
buses per hour per lane x 40 seats (32,000 seats) compared to trains at 2 minute headways - 30 trains of 8 cars with say 80 seats (19,200 seats). The Exclusive Bus Lane at the Lincoln Tunnel NY-NJ has been running the numbers cited for BRT potential for many years. Even the theoretical rail capacity of trains at 2 minute headways on the new Dulles Line could not be achieved because Orange Line trains would join Dulles trains at West Falls Church and Blue Line trains would be added at Rosslyn. Ten trains per hour (6,400) would strain capacity given the bottlenecks.
Capacity is a red herring because projected passenger loads are a fraction of these numbers.
(2) "Operating buses in Tysons to circulate riders would be slow and unattractive to commuters."
A. If BRT had four Tysons stops as planned for rail, then circulation beyond the stations would be similar. But BRT could be given on and off ramps from the mainline. Then buses could enter and depart the BRT mainline and go door to door greatly improving circulation over rail. Such a BRT setup would be more attractive and require fewer transfers/shuttles than rail.
(3) "Bus rapid transit would require a transfer to the Orange Line at the West Falls Church Metro Station, significantly adding travel time."
A. Not necessarily. BRT could be connected to HOT lanes on the Beltway and could use 66 to DC in a new managed lane. An alternative would be to build Metrorail West Falls Church to Tysons and terminate it there at an intermodal center. Buses will be much faster than rail because unlike rail they do not need to stop at each station along the mainline. Bus can be operated express since buses can pass one another at stops.
(4) "While the cost of building rail in the Dulles corridor would be greater, the operating costs would be lower. (An eight-car Metro train can comfortably carry 1,000 passengers with one operator. It would take 16 buses to handle this volume, each bus requiring a driver.)"
A. It is true that operator/driver costs are higher per thousand seats for buses than for trains. But that is more than offset by higher costs of other expenses for trains - costs of control rooms, maintenance of the rail, switching and power systems, ticketing, policing and maintenance and replacement of rolling stock are all much more expensive rail operating costs.
(5) "Finally, buses would not be an attractive alternative to driving a car. The Dulles corridor is an affluent area with two or more cars in each household. The experience nationally has been that rail encourages people to ride transit. Buses would not."A. Neither rail nor bus will be an attractive alternative to driving a car for most trips in the corridor. The convenience, privacy, door-to-door, go-when-you-are-ready characteristics of the private car will never be matched by any kind of transit for most trips. However for the minority of trips not made by private car the variety of vehicles that can be run on pavement - different sizes of buses, minibuses, minivans, limos, cabs - and their ability to depart the mainline and pass when they want to run express will provide a much more attractive service overall than rail. Buses and other tired vehicles can be adapted much more readily to passenger convenience and comfort than rail cars.
There is no experience rail encourages people to ride transit. On the contrary massive expenditures on new rail transit have been accompanied by continued declines in transit's mode share.
TOLLROADSnews 2008-03-02