[sustran] RE: sustran-discuss V1 #985

[Brent Efford]

A significant example of the "trojan horse" use of busways is Auckland, New
Zealand, where busways are being promoted by an anti-rail coalition backing
extensive freeway construction - i.e. as a sop to pro-public transport
sentiment without seriously challenging the car-dependent paradigm. There
are some busways already, using the shoulders of existing freeways, but they
come to an end where there is real competition for road width, like over the
harbour bridge.

To be in any way comparable to rail systems, busways would need to provide
an unobstructed right of way end-to-end. Busways can provide fast transit
through suburban areas but seem to exacerbate congestion problems downtown
where the buses have to mix with ordinary traffic, and become congestion
agents in their own right. Compare central Melbourne, where over-all
congestion is quite low and few bus routes enter the central city (and the
trams stick obediently to the middle of the street) with Brisbane or Sydney.

Brent Efford
Co-ordinator, Transport 2000+ NZ
PO Box 2626, Wellington 6015
New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
[mailto:owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org]
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2002 6:01 a.m.
To: sustran-discuss-digest at jca.apc.org
Subject: sustran-discuss V1 #985


* To leave, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE sustran-discuss-digest
* to majordomo at mail.jca.ax.apc.org

sustran-discuss         Friday, March 1 2002         Volume 01 : Number 985



In this issue:

    [sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:06:31 +0800
From: Craig Townsend <townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au>
Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)

Not including externalities and long term costs and benefits of operations,
there are additional benefits to construction of rail. Supply of E & M
equipment and steel contribute toward heavy industrialization and the
provision of high skill, well paid jobs, and technological spin-offs: this
has been done in Japan and more recently in Korea. The benefits are such
that industrialized nations are willing to offer loans on very favourable
terms in order to build rail systems in industrializing nations. Bangkok's
subway is under construction with a loan from the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (formerly OECF) with an interest rate of 0.75%
for 40 years and a 10 year grace period. I would be interested to know how
the costs of capital for construction differ between rail and busway.

Some of the comparisons being made appear to be between at-grade busways
and elevated rail. I would suggest that this is an inappropriate comparison
unless the rights of way required are really that different. How do the
rights of way compare between busway systems in operation versus LRT
systems in operation?

I too don't like getting into discussions pitting one form of transit
aganist another. As Lloyd suggests, the way around this is to state the
values and objectives and then choose appropriate means of working toward
those objectives. Thus, busways should be supported if they are part of a
package of measures supporting public transport and non-motorized
transport. However, they are being used as a "trojan horse" to make massive
road building more politically palatable in some places. My concern for the
enthusiasm over urban busways is not that they perform poorly, but that
they are promoted as a means of facilitating an eventual shift to a road
based, private, and motorized transport system. (I should have stated that
assumption explicitly in my previous message.) Alan suggests that busways
can be "picked up" and moved: I doubt that, but I would be interested to
hear of specific cases. I suspect that they will be converted into road
space for private vehicles in the future, which is why those of us
concerned about sustainable transport should be wary of them in the first
place!

At 05:58 PM 27/02/02 +0530, you wrote:
>Contd.
>
>Correction  Please read  "Population 8-10 millon or more" in place of
>population 80-100 million or more" in my earlier mail.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:10:17 +0530 (IST)
>From: Prof S L Dhingra <dhingra at civil.iitb.ac.in>
>To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
>Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: Bus and rail

________________________________________________
Craig Townsend
Institute for Sustainability & Technology Policy
Murdoch University
South Street, Murdoch
Perth, Western Australia 6150

tel: (61 8) 9360 6278
fax: (61 8) 9360 6421
email: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au

------------------------------

End of sustran-discuss V1 #985
******************************