[sustran] Re: Bus and rail

Lloyd Wright lfwright at usa.net
Tue Feb 26 21:09:02 JST 2002


I think one has to be careful about saying that bus rapid transit is not
appropriate in large and dense cities.  Bogota has a population of 7 million
people and 210 inhabitants per hectare.  Its TransMilenio bus system delivers
high quality, high-capacity transit quite well within this urban structure. 
TransMilenio is hitting around 27,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphd)
using an innovative express lane system.  Porto Alegre's bys system delivers
28,500 pphd peak using a single lane convoy technique.  And Sao Paulo hits
35,000 pphd using passing lanes on its busway.  There may be reasons to prefer
rail over bus, but capacity is not so much the issue.

In reality, I do not like to get into discussions pitting one form of transit
against another since I prefer to be pro-transit regardless of the form. 
Actually, much of what we like about well-run metros, rail, and bus systems
can be achieved with any of the options.  Namely, efficient pre-board fare
collection, dedicated right of ways, clean and safe stations, rapid boarding
and alighting, and superior customer service.  Whether these qualities are
delivered on rubber tyres or a steel rail is sometimes less important than
making sure that these issues are addressed (and sadly, most of the world's
transit sytems do not).

The reason high quality bus systems like those in Curitiba and Bogota deserve
consideration is cost.  Curitiba was built for $1.5 million per kilometer and
the very deluxe Bogota system was built for $5.3 million per kilometer.  The
lowest cost light rail systems start at around $12 million per kilometer. 
Urban rail is typically in the range of $20 million to $30 million, and
underground metros generally start at around $55 million and can be over $100
million per kilometer. Nevertheless, there are certainly times when rail is
appropriate, but one should not discount high quality bus systems, especially
if it is a trade-off between having one line versus an entire network for the
city.

Best regards,

Lloyd

Lloyd Wright
Director, Latin America
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy
115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205
New York, NY 10001
tel. +1 212 629 8001
fax  +1 212 629 8033
email LFWright at usa.net
web  www.itdp.org

Craig Townsend <townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with Prof. Whitelegg, and would urge caution to our
colleagues in cities of developing Asian nations in following Australia. While
TS is an excellent measure in the Perth context, in some sense it is an
"add-on" (along with busways and segregated cycle lanes) to one of the most
automobile dependent transportation systems in the world. If you tell your
road engineers to follow the Perth example, they may ask you for a blank
cheque!

I would also like to add to Dr. Dhingra's comments. Busways may be 
successful in mid-size, mid-density "provincial" cities like Curitiba, 
Nagoya, and Kunming; but there are compelling technical and political 
reasons why Sao Paulo, Tokyo, and Shanghai have high capacity rail systems
running along main corridors, and why these systems are all being expanded.
While mobilizing finance for heavy rail systems may be a challenge, as 
India's economy expands, large and high density mega-cities such as Mumbai and
Kolkata must have rail, bus, and NMT oriented transport systems.

Best wishes,

Craig Townsend


____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list