[sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization

[Alan Howes]

Some fair points - but the good thing about BRT is that the buses can at
any point leave the BRT track and become an ordinary bus which, properly
catered for, can have all the advantages Chris claims for streetcars
[trams].  OK, perhaps not a mega-200-place-bi-artic BRT bus, but you
don't have to go the whole hog.

Alan

  
-- 
Alan Howes
Associate Transport Planner
Colin Buchanan
4 St Colme Street
Edinburgh      EH3 6AA
Scotland
email:  alan.howes at cbuchanan.co.uk
tel:      (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard)
           (0)7952 464335  (mobile)
fax:     (0)131 220 0232
www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/
_______________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive
it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to
anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the
sender by replying to this email. 
Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not
constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of
Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any
professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to
our terms and conditions of business.
We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software
viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by
software viruses.
_______________________________


-----Original Message-----
From:
sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk at list.jca.apc.
org] On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw
Sent: 21 March 2006 03:14
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: land use control and levels of motorization

Light rail is indeed more popular with riders, and it has lower negative
impacts on adjacent land uses.  However, it shares with BRT 1) long
distances between stations and 2) the fact that it is not compatible
with service-rich, walkable main streets.

Street cars are superior at this, using the middle of the road, and
allowing for wider sidewalks at corners, and not being at the mercy of
auto traffic (but in fact, the reverse).

Both light rail and BRT run in corridors that are totally segregated
from both cars and street life.  They are good at moving people long
distances, but poor at maintaining or rebuilding the "fabric" of a city,
the system of millions of interconnections that are informal and
spontaenous.

And they help suburbs survive as still 90% sprawl, where most people
might agree to use transit for their working trip, but won't use it for
their daily non-commuting trips -- and therefore have to own a car.
Once the car-key is in the pocket (and the high payments staring the
owner in the face every month), the car will get the nod for most trips.

Where density warrants, the subway is the only acceptible alternative to
street cars, since it can provide fast, long trips, and not disrupt (in
fact, it supports) healthy main streets, vs. the suburb's "activity
centres"
with their huge fringes of parking .

Chris Bradshaw
Ottawa



================================================================
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.