E Line | F Line | |
---|---|---|
Roadways/Communication/ Transit Signal Priority (TSP) |
$5.97M (16%) |
$9.93M (28%) |
Passenger Facilities (Shelters, lighting, etc.) |
$5.1M (14%) |
$7.64M (22%) |
Real Time Information Signs |
$790,000 (2%) |
$800,000 (2%) |
New Buses |
$24.9M (68%) |
$16.8M (47%) |
Total |
$36.74 |
$35.12M |
Following last weeks announcement of FTA’s Very Small Starts funding of the E and F lines I started wondering about the cost breakdown of RapidRide. I have some answers thanks to Rochelle Ogershok at King County Metro. For each line, the total cost is roughly the same, but the breakdown differs significantly between the two. For the E Line, almost 70% of capital costs go towards new coaches, which certainly reflects the longer cycle time, and thus larger number of buses necessary to achieve 10-minute peak period headways.
Comparing the two lines, the extra cost of new buses on the E Line is offset through lower roadway/communication/TSP costs and passenger facilities. This is likely because SDOT and Shoreline have already done most of the work to prepare signals for TSP along the corridor by upgrading signal controllers and cabinets, which is necessary for various component of the RapidRide ITS system to operate. The lower relative cost could also be related to the need for fewer concrete bus stop pads along the E Line.
Despite the larger number of “stations” on the E Line, passenger facility costs are higher for the F Line. The only reason I could see explaining this is better and thus cheaper access to power along Aurora, less right of way purchase necessary to accommodate stations and fewer sidewalk improvements for the E Line compared to the more suburban F Line. The smallest part of the budgets, just 2% for both routes, is spent on real-time information signs, although things like power and communication, which are included in the other cost categories, are need for real-time information signs are to operate.
My personal take on these numbers, which I have said before, is that American BRT over-emphasizes slick-looking buses at the expense of more broadly investing in speed and reliability improvements that benefit frequent bus routes, regardless of branding. That FTA specifically funds projects which meet its “BRT” criteria, without setting caps on the the percentage of a project budget that can go to buses, exacerbates this problem, and could create an undesirable incentives for transit agencies to see FTA BRT funding as free money for bus replacement, rather than a challenge from the FTA to improve the quality of bus transit.