[sustran] more on Bus and rail (fwd)

[BruunB at aol.com]

Is that you, Walter, who raised these good points?

Just to complicate things further, NYC's capital costs are higher than average
due to the abnormal complexity of the system and the starving of repair 
budgets for many decades, up to the early 1980s. I think this is why normal 
maintenance balloons into major capital investments.

Eric




In a message dated 3/4/02 3:09:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, mobility at igc.org 
writes:

<< 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.
 
 
  >>