Negative thoughts on metro in general (and on from there)

[Duarte Rosa Filho]

Greetings from Brazil.
There is an article "A systematic review of busways", by David R.
Martinelli, published in the Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 122, N0. 3, May/June 1996, p. 192 - 199.
It says: “Somewhat surprisingly, given the clear-cut advantages of bus rapid
transit in most situation, and the extensive scholarly literature
documenting these advantages, alternatives analyses comparing exclusive
busways and rail rapid transit for particular metropolitan areas typically
find that total system cost, and, in some instances, even the capital costs,
of light and heavy rail systems, are less than those of comparable exclusive
busway systems. This outcome, which has become more difficult to achieve
increasing federal oversight of the “Alternative Analysis” process, can
usually be explained by a prior commitment to rail and a willingness to
“cook the numbers” until they yield the desired result.”
It is an excellent paper which brings a lot of light into the subject being
discussed.
Cheers,
Duarte

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Lake Sagaris <sagaris at lake.mic.cl>
Para: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Data: Quinta-feira, 9 de Março de 2000 17:19
Assunto: [sustran] Re: Negative thoughts on metro in general (and on from
there)


>Let me add, in the rigid classbound societies of developing countries,
>where the car is often the maximum symbol of having made it out of the
>bottom mud and into the light, noisy dangerously driven poorly kept buses
>are often the maximum symbol of the opposite. Metros, on the other hand, at
>least Santiago (Chile) offer one of the few models of social equality,
>transportation for the whole nation and not just the top or bottom half.
>EVERYONE uses the metro (if it coincides with their route). If you're
>talking about social justice and equality, metros are extremely important,
>perhaps not the be all and end all, but very useful at the practical AND
>the symbolic end.
>
>Cheers, Lake

>At 01:38 PM 3/9/00 -0500, you wrote:
Eric, et. al.
>>
>>I don't have the time to spend either, much as I would like, but I
>>have to make a comment.
>>
>>Up to now, I have almost always agreed with you. But "Goodbye to
>>Metros" is a bit much. Look at productive capacity - capacity times
>>speed (Productive Capacity), to see what the investment buys - if
>>tremendous capacity over long distances in a reasonable amount of time is
>>needed - nothing can outperform them. Of course, cost is a problem, but it
>>is not true that other modes have the same performance, that is my only
>>point.  This doesn't mean they always go to the right places, have
>>the right network configuration, or are properly connected to other
>>modes, but one can say this about any proposed rail or busway investment.
>>On the other hand, since the investment is permanent, one can eventually
>>revise the connecting network to improve the overall system over time.
>>
>>Also, if you want to make service attractive in wealthier cities, you
>>might have to invest in high performance. Parkinson's law does not
>>always hold, either. Munich has had no increase in average trip length per
>>capita for 20 years, even with massive increases in rail service.
>>The secret is to take additional measures such as pedestrian malls,
>>high parking prices, etc. to deter additional driving.
>>
>>Eric Bruun