Last summer, Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry proposed a $100 million initiative to spur economic development along the Route 66 corridor. It would be two lanes of dedicated bus lines to mimic a light-rail system along Central Avenue.
The so-called rapid-transit bus system would cover a 10-mile stretch of Central. Berry cited a study that ranked Albuquerque last among 20 Western cities among investors because it lacks a high-density, transit-rich environment.
Berry says the rapid-transit bus system would solve that and make Albuquerque more attractive to big business. The city is waiting to see whether the federal government will kick in $80 million of the funding.
I said at the time:
Berry can try to dress up the buses as quasi-trains all he wants, but it’s still a bus. Buses never will be as desirable to middle- and upper-class residents as trains. Wishing for buses to be more palatable to the masses doesn’t make it so.
Taking up two lanes for buses likely will cause more problems than it will solve. Central Avenue remains a busy main artery in Albuquerque, and making it tougher to drive on it won’t make residents or Route 66 tourists happy.
And having what he calls a “transit rich” environment works only if the city involved has a high-density population. Mass transit is an easier sell in congested cities such as Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco and New York City. But Albuquerque averages fewer than 3,000 residents per square mile — not close to those cited.
This week, Will Gleason, a planner at Dekker/Perich/Sabatini architectural firm, wrote an op-ed piece in Albuquerque Business First that supported Berry’s plan:
ART will make Central Avenue a safer, more walkable street by balancing the need to accommodate autos with space dedicated to transit, wider sidewalks for pedestrians and designated pedestrian crossing zones in the middle of block. Cars will still drive down Central (no, it won’t “kill” Route 66) but people enjoying places like Nob Hill will have an easier time crossing the street and feel safer walking along the renovated sidewalks. […]
Why does this matter? Albuquerque’s look and character is largely the result of how the city was engineered with the auto in mind. We are great at reducing delays and making turns for cars easy. We are not so great at making streets that are fun to walk and cross. Many other cities around the country have shifted away from designing streets for cars and accommodating other forms of travel, like bikes, pedestrians and transit. We can do it too.
Gleason is correct that cities are converting to a more walkable form of planning. And his vision for Nob Hill prompted me to recall University City, Missouri, which has so embraced walking culture, it’s building a trolley line down the middle of Delmar Avenue.
Gleason’s stance doesn’t convert me from a skeptic to a supporter. But it makes me more open-minded to the plan.
(Image of a Rapid Ride bus along Albuquerque’s Central Avenue by David via Flickr)
The biggest issue regarding mass transit on Central isn’t that of rails vs wheels, but the incredibly unattractive and dangerous nature of inner Albuquerque. Nobody wants to stand among the needles, trash, panhandlers and street thugs waiting for a bus or a train.
It’s an inconvenient truth but one that needs to be addressed before we throw $100 MILLION dollars down a hole.
Again.
Jay, you made the point by missing the point. The project is an attempt to revitalize the area and provide a positive, welcoming environment that will spur redevelopment and bring more people.
I am amazed at the smugness of people who will not be impacted adversely by this monstrosity. People are not going to stop driving, no matter how much others wish them to do so, it is just going to force traffic throughout all the adjacent streets. The buses are a nightmare; replete often with aggressive drunks, panhandlers, etc. People who want to ride the buses will do so, but you can’t force that on everybody. I find it ironic that many of those who are so in favor of this idiotic plan do not ride the buses, nor live in areas that will be negatively affected. Perhaps some of you remember the 4th St. Mall area downtown, which was supposed to attract office workers to stop and eat in its lovely shade. Well, the trees were lovely, that is, until they were chopped down last year because the only people “basking” were drinking out of bottles in paper bags and passing out, and the area became an “eyesore.” But, hey, keep making the same dumb mistakes over and over. Stay stuck on stupid.
Smugness indeed. I’ve listened to these tired old nay-say cliches for over 40 years. Sure, some of the points are well taken. I also read where some of the property owner groups or associations worked with the planners and engineers to keep two auto lanes open in each direction in some segments. The master plan also shows segments where a two-lane section with a single two-way left turn lane is the existing condition.
Here’s the “well duh” moment that many people are missing. The feds are planning to spend over a $100 million on your major thoroughfare? Really? Send that money to my city we could use it perhaps more than you could.
Well duh, the buses are not the largest expenditure for this project, because the roadway, underground infrastructure and streetscaping cost represents the bulk of the investment. If this were a more “funky” light rail system, the exact opposite would be true.
Another observation is that commercial access control is sorely needed to improve the ingress/egress for properties. The two center bus lanes adjacent to the raised median is a creative access management and traffic operation solution. I wish we had thought of this on some previous projects.
Ok, so what’s the well-duh moment?Actually two.
1. Light rail requires very expensive dedicated facilities. Buses do not. Buses use regular roadway lanes. Bus routes can be programmed and altered relatively easy as traffic needs change in the future, including the total elimination of routes. What do suppose happens to the lanes if the buses “disappeared”? Wellduh.
2. The current property owners allow the vagrants on their properties? Why is that? Think Times Square and hundreds of other neighborhoods around the country. In the 70’s and 80’s, many downtown areas were scary. With redevelopment, the blighted areas became so expensive, the crappy businesses that didn’t give a damn who hangs out on their property could no longer afford the rent. They went out of business anyway. It’s the investment conundrum that beguiles all cities. Improve it or lose it; or improve it AND lose it. If any of that property were mine, I’d wait for the ship to dock and let the good times roll. Ka-Ching.