[sustran] Re: Bus and rail (fwd)

mobility mobility at igc.org
Tue Mar 5 05:07:57 JST 2002


Two small points on the BRT/MRT debate.

i looked at the photos of the Transmilenio system in Bogota regarding the
severance impact it might have on pedestrians and cyclists crossing the system.
The severance problem was definitiely made worse by the construction of
Trans-Milenio.

That being said, it also severed motor vehicle trips, which allowed it to
function as a form of traffic demand management (ie. by restricting access points
into the downtown).  One could almost use the BRT to create a ''cordon" within
which to impose cordon pricing.  anybody explored this? You would have neither of
these effects of a burried metro line.  Also, for better or worse, if you build
the BRT at surface and you are taking road capacity away from motorists, the BRT
can function as a TDM measure at the same time.

Regarding the costs of operations, it would seem to depend on whether you
consider large scale maintenance part of operating costs or not.  If you exclude
large scale maintenance in New York,  the subways have lower operating costs than
buses, but if you include large scale maintenance they are higher.  We have a
habit in the US of calling large scale maintenance ''capital'' investment, but in
fact the entire capital budget of the NYCTA is not actually building anything
new, it is just keeping the system from further deteriorating, other than some
very slow signalling system improvements and perhaps marginally better trains.



BruunB at aol.com 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



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list