[sustran] Re: Bus and rail

[Alan Patrick Howes]

That just about says it all, IMO. Apart from the fact (again IMO) that there
is a particular problem about rail systems in less developed countries -
particularly those experiencing rapid economic growth. In such countries,
there tends to be far less certainty about future land use distribution, and
intensities of residential and commercial development. Major developments
may be built, or not built, virtually on a whim - totally different to the
well-directed land use planning that is the case in Europe, and even, to a
lesser extent, in North America (I think!).

Planning and design horizons for rail are relatively long, and it can well
happen that by the time a line is built, the assumptions on which it was
planned have changed radically. In such a case you can hardly pick up the
rails and put them elsewhere - a much more realistic option with a busway,
where the capital investment per km. is much lower.

All opinions are my own.
-- 
Alan P Howes, Special Transport Advisor, 
     Dubai Municipality Public Transport Department
aphowes at dm.gov.ae
Tel:    +971 4 286 1616 ext 214
Mobile: +971 50 5989661


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lloyd Wright [mailto:lfwright at usa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:09 PM
> To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus and rail
> 
> 
> 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