Opponents of light rail claim an inherent superiority of buses over light rail. They point out the advantage of buses to detour around blocked segments of their route whereas light rail is limited to travel over its trackway. They also point out that buses offer the ability to provide service where tracks are not laid - into our neighborhoods - with no more infrastructure requirement than the pavement which is already provided for automobiles. Finally, and most interesting, they claim that the throughput of a busway - a dedicated path for buses - can be greater than that of a trackway provided for light rail.

These are unsettling claims while we look at the price tag for a rail system through the heart of Seattle. It is especially unsettling since we will lose the busway we already have (the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel - DSTT) when Sound Transit takes it over. Are these claims really valid? Why do we see nothing like this implemented elsewhere on the West Coast - most of whose cities have built light rail? Let's look at each issue separately.

First, what about the issue of being able to divert vehicles around a stalled vehicle or blocked right-of-way? To our knowledge, this has never been a major issue on any rail transit system. Part of the reason is that rail transit is provided with crossovers at strategic points along the trackway. These crossovers allow the system to operate in both directions on one track through segments of the alignment which might be blocked for a particular reason - usually a vehicular accident at a rail crossing or other blockage of a trackway. It is almost never an issue with a disabled train, for three primary reasons:

First, light rail cars are electrically powered and the electric motors driving them have more reliable than diesel engines used by buses.

Second, each car is propelled by at least four electric motors, and the loss of any single motor is unlikely to cause more than a minor slowdown in service for the vehicle until it can be taken out of service.

Third, light rail trains typically consist of multiple cars, each of which has a completely independent propulsion system. If any single vehicle were somehow to become disabled, again the remaining vehicles in the trainset could move the train at reduced speed until the disabled vehicle could be taken out of service.

Regarding the ability of a bus to diverge from a chosen path and travel on other surface streets, there is no argument that this is a feature that buses alone can provide. However, there are other considerations.

What if those routes are clogged with cars and the buses are mired in traffic? There goes any incentive to ride transit. If we provide HOV lanes on those arterials, then we are looking at a major capital expenditure, which contradicts the advantage claimed. Another issue regards the broader subject of urban planning and what a transit system can do for a community. Is it really an advantage for the bus to take another route? If you are a developer or city planner seeking to develop a retail development or new community center around a transit station, which is the more assured transit system to locate near: 1) a bus transit system which may or may not be providing service five or ten years in the future, or 2) a rail transit system for which you have the assurance of a permanent trackbed and rails? Will the rail transit service go away? It is certainly possible, because transit is a public expense which faces curtailment in tight economic times. However, remember that rail transit costs from 20% to 50% less per passenger-mile to operate than bus transit. Chances are the rail line will be there for a long time.

Finally, the claimed capacity of busways being superior to light rail is a comparison of apples to oranges. There is one facility in the United States (and possibly the only one in the world) which can claim a one-way capacity of over 30,000 passengers per hour: the I-495 contraflow bus-lanes through the Lincoln Tunnel between New Jersey and New York. Yes, that capacity is far above what could be provided by Link in Seattle. (Link maximum capacity, depending upon the assumption for standees is from 9,000 to 16,000 passengers per hour each direction.) Note the following:

• Population density in the New York metropolitan area is the highest in the United States. The populace is extremely dependent upon transit because of the limited number of routes into the City. Buses feed into the Lincoln Tunnel from a number of directions and, together with the region's network of commuter rail lines, provide just about the only reasonable means of travel.
• Rather than a dedicated busway, the bus-lane is a contraflow-facility meaning that an opposing lane from the freeway is taken away from off-peak direction traffic and given over to the buses. With an average headway of five seconds between buses, this facility is operating on the ragged edge of safety whereby a single incident can lead to a massive backup. In September, an accident occurred between two buses when one bus in the oncoming traffic veered into the lane to avoid a rear-end collision, only to have a head-on collision with another bus. The only separation between oncoming vehicles is a line of plastic traffic cones.
• Frequently, buses are delayed for several minutes trying to get onto the busway due to the poor entrance facilities. In spite of the apparent speed of the busway itself, getting into the lane is a challenge and causes backups elsewhere.
• There are no intermediate stops on the affected section of I-495 nor in the Tunnel. Unlike Seattle's Downtown Transit Tunnel, the buses continue through without the possibility of letting passengers on and off. If buses were to stop, throughput would drop to a fraction of the existing operation.
• When the buses emerge from the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, they enter the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a major multi-level, multi-platform bus station. Originally built in the early 1950s, and expanded in ensuing decades, it has been estimated that if this facility were to be built today, the cost would be in the range of $2 billion.
• In order to accommodate the large number of passengers entering the bus terminal, two New York subway lines provide connections to New Jersey bus riders' final destinations in Manhattan, with connections to additional subway lines serving New York's other boroughs.
• Finally, and most revealing of its acceptance, the populace has been demanding for years that the busway be replaced with a rail transit system which would be more attractive and provide a higher level of service. Three rail projects are currently in planning .

Conclusion: The Lincoln Tunnel bus lane is one-of-a-kind and holds no promise for Seattle. It provides a service for which there is no present alternative, and it could not be duplicated here.