[sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)

[Alan Patrick Howes]

Indeed. And presumably the converse also applies? Driver (operator) costs
are hardy an issue here, and in less developed countries even less so.

And the attractiveness of rail to higher income riders is something of a
cultural issue. In some parts of the world (eg parts of South America and SE
Asia, Turkey), rail has a pretty negative image, while in Europe it is very
much the reverse.


-- 
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: Lake Sagaris [mailto:sagaris at terra.cl]
> Sent: Fri, March 01, 2002 1:35 AM
> To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)
> 
> 
> Interesting observations, Eric, especially the last. Thanks.
> 
> Lake Sagaris
> Living City (Ciudad Viva)
> Santiago
> 
> At 12:29 PM 2/28/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Additional issues to consider off of the top of my head include
> >1) the peaking characteristics of travel -- rail is much 
> better at meeting
> >large surges in demand since high frequency can be 
> maintained all day long at
> >the same operator cost, only the consist size changes.
> >2) I have heard the Sao Paolo busways are atrocious to be 
> located near. The
> >wall of buses is very noisy and severs the corridor, much 
> like freeways have
> >done to the US.
> >3) The type of alignment used. Once building an elevated 
> section or tunnel
> >anyway, the case for rail becomes much stronger.
> >4) The number of corridors that need improvement. Cities 
> that are more linear
> >with with fewer corridors can better afford to concentrate 
> investment than
> >ones that have a sprawling grid to cover.
> >5) The higher the income level of passengers you are trying 
> to attract and
> >the higher the income level of the vehicle operators, the 
> more sense rail
> >makes.
> >
> >Eric Bruun
> 
>