[sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

[Karl Fjellstrom]

Zvi,
In my view one of the most appealing things about BRT is that most new
applications, including all of the Chinese BRT systems being developed, are
median-aligned. The bike lanes meanwhile are side-aligned, and even when
there are no bike lanes the bikes tend to ride on the side. So there is
usually no contradiction between bikes and BRT and no need to choose one or
the other. 
In fact it's the opposite. The present situation is often for high volumes
of buses and bicycles to be in conflict in the side lanes, which is bad for
both. With BRT you remove these conflicts, improving conditions for both.
Karl

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Zvi Leve
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 7:09 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Perceived railmarket in Asia + BRT in Europe

Hello,

>
>This will definately not quiet the discussion about appropriate transport
for developing countries:
>  
>
As has already been pointed out, in the context of developing countries 
mass transit is attracting many people who would have alternatively used 
non-motorized modes of transport (which presumably are more 
"sustainable"). For example, in China, bicycle rights of way (ROW) are 
steadily eroding as more and more road space is allocated to motorized 
vehicles.

For BRT to be succesful, it should ideally have a completely dedicated 
ROW and signal priority in the congested sections. Maintaining BRT ROW 
often comes at the expense of completely prohibiting bicycle traffic on 
certain roads.

Obviously the best solution would be to find a way to maintain (or even 
improve) non-motorized accessibility while also improving public transit 
accessibility. Given that these two goals may be at odds, how best to 
procede?

 From a 'sustainability' point of view: if BRT can move 15,000 people 
per hour in a given corridor (in say 100 vehicles) at such and such an 
energy consumption and cost, whereas the same road space could serve 
3000 bicycles (clearly less "through-put") with no fuel consumption and 
no emissions, what is the better use of the space?

Just some food for thought!

Zvi


================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com