[sustran] Negative thoughts on metro in general

Mark Diesendorf Mark.Diesendorf at uts.edu.au
Fri Mar 10 10:42:32 JST 2000


It is not necessary to talk about cooking the books. It is also a 
question of which costs one counts and which one ignores.

The comparison between the costs of busways and light rail, measured 
in cents per passenger per km travelled, depends sensitively upon the 
costs of land. In general a busway requires about 50% more land than 
a light rail easement, assuming that both are at ground level. In 
cities where land is expensive, this can give the advantage to light 
rail.

In addition, as Eric Bruun has pointed out, rail (I would add, light 
as well as heavy) has a higher passenger capacity. So, provided the 
passengers are there, it is not obvious that busways are necessarily 
cheaper in cents per passenger per km travelled.

Cheers,

Mark


>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-----



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list