[sustran] Re: Mass transit modes "competition"

[Carlosfelipe Pardo]

FYI---------------

Eric,

Thanks for your point of view. The excerpts below from the planning
guide itself may be useful to see if it is truly objective or not. I
invite everyone else to give their opinion.

“Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is thus just one of the many public transport
technology options. Additionally, there are a range of rail-based public
transport systems that are possible, including underground metros,
elevated rail systems, Light Rail Transit (LRT), and trams (Figures 2.1
through 2.6). No one of these options is inherently correct or
incorrect. Local conditions and local preferences play a significant
role in determining the preferred system type…

The decision to select a particular technology depends upon many
factors. Costs, performance characteristics, local conditions, and
personal preferences have historically all played a role in the
decision-making process…

In recent years, significant debate amongst transport professionals has
occurred on whether BRT or rail-based solutions are the most
appropriate. Such competition between systems can actually be healthy as
it implies an environment in which all technologies must strive to
improve. A rigorous evaluation process will help ensure that a city
makes the most appropriate choice…

In reality, a top-down approach that begins with a technology focus is
perhaps not the ideal. It is much preferred to define desired public
transport characteristics prior to selecting a particular technology. By
understanding customer needs with respect to fare levels, routing and
location, travel time, comfort, safety, security, frequency of service,
quality of infrastructure, and ease of access, system developers can
define the preferred type of service without bias toward any particular
technology (Figure 2.15). Thus, much of the planning noted in this
Planning Guide can actually be conducted without committing to one type
of technology over another. In this scenario, the public transport
technology is one of the last issues to be introduced in the
decision-making process. Such a customer-orientated approach will likely
have the best chance of producing a public transport service that can
effectively compete with the private automobile…

The choice of public transport technology should be based on a range of
considerations with performance and cost being amongst the most
important. As suggested, these requirements are ideally derived from an
objective analysis of the existing and projected situation. Table 2.1
outlines categories of the characteristics that can help shape a city’s
decision towards the most appropriate type of public transport  
technology.

*Table 2.1 Factors in choosing a type of public transport technology*

Category

	

Factor

*Cost*

	

*Capital costs (infrastructure and property costs)*

* *

	

*Operating costs*

* *

	

*Planning costs*

*Planning and management*

	

*Planning and implementation time*

* *

	

*Management and administration*

*Design*

	

*Scalability*

* *

	

*Flexibility*

* *

	

*Diversity versus homogeneity*

*Performance*

	

*Capacity*

* *

	

*Travel time / speed*

* *

	

*Service frequency*

* *

	

*Reliability*

* *

	

*Comfort*

* *

	

*Safety*

* *

	

*Customer service*

* *

	

*Image and perception*

*Impacts*

	

*Economic impacts *

* *

	

*Social impacts *

* *

	

*Environmental impacts *

* *

	

*Urban impacts*

Again, no one public transport solution is the right solution for all
cities. The local circumstances and public policy objectives play a
significant role in selecting the most appropriate public transport
solution for any city.”



bruun at seas.upenn.edu wrote:
> Carlos
>
> I have read most of the chapter to which you refer and much of the BRT
> Planning Guide. I just don't happen to agree that your comparisons are
> as "real and objective" as you think that they are. By making a guide
> that pretty much recommends BRT for every situation, no matter how big
> the city, no matter what the priorities or weightings of the various
> project goals might be, no matter how dense the development of the
> city or its geography, what rights-of-way are available (or not), or
> how bad the traffic is, maybe your consortium is not completely
> objective either.
>
> Eric Bruun
>
>
> Quoting Carlosfelipe Pardo <carlosfpardo at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think the whole topic of mass transit modes (bus-based, rail-based,
>> and its divisions) cries for a real and objective comparison in terms
>> of characteristics, real (not theoretical) capacities, costs, impacts
>> and long term benefits, plus other stuff like social impact of the
>> city where a system is implemented (employment, local operator
>> involvement, etc). The issue of projected - real costs has been
>> reviewed and has given some impressive results (in the negative
>> sense). The recent BRT Planning Guide from ITDP, GTZ, UNEP, GEF,
>> Hewlett, Viva has a nice chapter on this issue, which I invite
>> everyone to check out (and the whole guide, for that matter).
>>
>> The real problem with fighting between rail and bus-based options is
>> that, in the meantime, people are getting off public transport and
>> into cars...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Carlos.
>>
>> bruun at seas.upenn.edu wrote:
>>
>> BrendanDid I say I defend such estimates? I don't know the history
>> of who sanctioned the estimates, but I don't automatically blame
>> consultants or the industry. Sometimes it is the politicians who hunt
>> around for someone who will say what they want to hear. This estimate
>> should never have been taken seriously. I also know that in some  
>> cases
>> the fares changed dramatically from the original assumptions,
>> important destinations get deleted, etc.As I have said before, I am
>> not opposing BRT. But my main point still holds, I think. It is  
>> pretty
>> unfair to say that a 65 km system carrying 600,000 per day is
>> "abysmal" by comparing it to the hypothetical performance of BRT that
>> is currently carrying about 0 passengers, 10 years after both  
>> projects
>> were initiated.I also think it is short-sighted to not take into
>> account the long-term impacts on sustainability. This can also  
>> justify
>> higher initial capital costs. If rail succeeds in supporting
>> densification of land use, this benefit will last for perpetuity.  
>> This
>> would make a good topic for future discussion.Eric BruunIQuoting
>> Brendan Finn <etts at indigo.ie>:
>>
>> Dear Eric,When a very large amount of public money is sanctioned
>> based on a projection which turns out to be 5 times higher than the
>> actual out-turn, there is something seriously wrong. And not just
>> with the math. Patronage and financial projections for rail-based
>> systems are very seriously wrong time and time again. Are you telling
>> us that consultants didn't learn after the first few occasions and
>> are incapable of revising their methodologies?A lot of metro and rail
>> projects around the world get approved on dodgy math and
>> wildly-optimistic assumptions which don't come to pass. It is
>> systematic within the sector. This is gross and wilful deception,
>> aided and abetted by companies that present themselves as
>> professionals. Whether or not it is a nice metro does not excuse such
>> practices.With best wishes,Brendan.
>> _____________________________________________________________________ 
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> Brendan Finn e-mail : etts at indigo.ie tel :
>> +353.87.2530286----- Original Message ----- From:
>> <bruun at seas.upenn.edu> To: "Sujit Patwardhan" <sujitjp at gmail.com> Cc:
>> "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport"
>> <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:59
>> PM Subject: [sustran] Re: BRTS in Delhi
>>
>> Sujit3.1 million per day is unrealistic. It always was. That
>> doesn't make Metro a bad idea just because someone made bad
>> predictions.But 600,000 is not insignificant. You can argue that BRT
>> would be better value for money, but how much has been built? Both
>> BRT and the Metro were authorized in 1997. One is working and  
>> making a
>> valuable contribution, the other still is not. Yet, we keep hearing
>> that BRT can be done quickly and Metros take forever.Eric  
>> BruunQuoting
>> Sujit Patwardhan <sujitjp at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Dear Eric,65 Kilometers is correct. And the ridership of 600,000
>> *is* "abysmal" when compared to the project projection of over 3.1
>> million. When projects involving huge sums (of people's money) are
>> invested in a project meant to produce specific result it is highly
>> objectionable when the actual figures fall short not by 5% or 10% but
>> by over 80%.This is how most *non viable* projects are cooked up
>> whether they be Mega Dams or Transportation / Urban infrastructure
>> projects. If the ridership of 3.1 million seems ridiculous, why did
>> the Govt sanction the project, particularly when much cheaper options
>> were available?I don't think figures of ridership on the Washington
>> Metro are quite relevant to Asian countries with much higher
>> population densities. Pune Municipal Transport buses of very poor
>> quality, for instance carry over 600,000 commuters each day. They do
>> this with about 650 buses which are of old technology, and in poor
>> condition of upkeep. We feel Pune with about 2000 modern semi low
>> floor and efficient buses would be able to provide excellent quality
>> public transport with a citywide network. If the city were to provide
>> the same coverage by Metro we will need 10 years or more to make it
>> functional and be certainly driven to bankruptcy. And everyone knows
>> that Bogota's Transmilenio carries more passengers than the
>> Washington Metro at a much lower cost .So there are serious problems
>> with Metro but politicians love expensive projects and this is
>> supported by the elites who want to keep up with the Jones's. They  
>> say
>> if Bangkok can have a Metro why not India? Much like the juvenile
>> boast of "mine's bigger than yours" . I think we need to move beyond
>> that and face the hard reality of a choice between car dominated
>> "business as usual" scenario and the alternative "New Mobility"  
>> vision
>> that honours walking, cycling and affordable public transport system
>> -- best of which today appears to be the BRT.-- SujitOn Sun, Apr 27,
>> 2008 at 7:18 AM, <bruun at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>
>> AashishThanks for the ridership figure. (I think the 65 km is out
>> of date. It was 66 kms 3 years ago.)The reason I was asking is that
>> Sujit said the ridership was "abysmal." But 600,000 persons for 66  
>> kms
>> is actually pretty crowded. The Washington Metro is 105 miles (over
>> 160 kms) and several of the lines are genuinely crush loaded during
>> the rush hours with only 700,000 passengers per day. Admittedly,
>> people in the U.S. tend to be larger than in India, which also
>> aggravates the crowding.As for an estimate of 3.1 Million, this seems
>> ridiculous. Of course, it isn't going to meet that. Maybe if the fare
>> was assumed to be very low and crowding standards were
>> extreme......EricQuoting Sujit Patwardhan <sujitjp at gmail.com>:
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sujit Patwardhan
>> <sujitjp at gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:08 PM Subject: Re:
>> [pttfgen:1409] BRTS in Delhi To: pttfgen at googlegroups.com25 April
>> 2008BRT in Delhi =========Yes problems galore and I've been following
>> the reports in the media including the CNN IBN that Ashok Datar  
>> was to
>> appear on, but didn't for
>>
>> some
>>
>> reason.My take on all this is as follows:Deterioration in traffic
>> has been an ongoing process in many Asian
>>
>> cities
>>
>> for the last 3 decades or more. Like the frog sitting in a beaker
>> of
>>
>> water
>>
>> being slowly heated it has not had an occasion to "explode". Metro
>> was
>>
>> taken
>>
>> up and executed brilliantly by Mr. E Sridharan, with attention to
>> the minutest detail and a free hand guaranteeing "no interference"
>> from politicians. On top of that every lapse and overshooting of
>> budgets as
>>
>> well
>>
>> as abysmally poor ridership compared to the projected figures was
>>
>>
>> pardoned
>>
>> by a supportive Govt and compensated from additional funds made
>>
>> available
>>
>> without delay and cloaked in secrecy.*Delhi Metro project is a
>> marketing triumph that fills every Indian's
>>
>> chest
>>
>> with pride*. However, how much travel-coverage (as Public
>> Transport) the very expensive Metro will be able to provide is a big
>> question mark.
>>
>> There
>>
>> is also the real possibility that the amount spent on the Metro
>>
>> represents
>>
>> lost opportunity for other investments - like libraries and
>> cultural centres, gardens, public spaces and other amenities  
>> needed by
>> the city.
>>
>> *But
>>
>> in the final analysis we should accept that the Metro is pubic
>> transport
>>
>> and
>>
>> hence we must support it* unlike the eight lane highways, flyovers,
>> multistory car parks and other infrastructures being *routinely
>> provided
>>
>> by
>>
>> the city as subsidy to ever growing number of car and 2 wheeler
>> owners
>>
>> at
>>
>> the cost of other more efficient modes of travel.*BRT unlike the
>> Metro has to deal with the existing conditions on our
>>
>> roads.
>>
>> Of indiscipline, rampant irregularities, encroachments, poor
>>
>> engineering,
>>
>> lack of understanding about the rights of pedestrians, cyclists and
>> non personal auto users. So if the road surface is poor BRT is  
>> blamed,
>> if drivers are indisciplined BRT is blamed, if a car stalls in the MV
>> lane
>>
>> and
>>
>> clogs up the traffic it is perceived as a problem caused by the
>> BRT. If
>>
>> the
>>
>> BRT lanes look empty (as indeed they will - considering each bus
>> carries many more people), it is seen as waste of an expensive
>> resource --
>>
>> although
>>
>> not many of these critics complained much all these years about the
>>
>>
>> *wasteful
>>
>> use of resources when low occupancy cars filled up these very
>> roads* -
>>
>> well
>>
>> before BRT appeared on the scene.So it is clear that BRT planning
>> should have been rooted in outreach and marketing it as a concept  
>> that
>> will improve mobility (of people as
>>
>> against
>>
>> just near-empty personal vehicles), will greatly improve access
>> for
>>
>> people
>>
>> who are today helpless captive users of uncomfortable and outdated
>>
>>
>> buses, it
>>
>> will provide an option to those who are forced to use personal
>>
>> transport,
>>
>> not necessarily out of choice but compulsion, and as benefits of a
>>
>>
>> growing
>>
>> BRT network becomes visible and better, more comfortable and even
>> A/C
>>
>> buses
>>
>> start plying on the BRT corridors, the higher middle class and even
>> the
>>
>> rich
>>
>> will have no problem patronizing this mode for purely rational
>> reasons
>>
>> of
>>
>> getting a faster, more punctual, comfortable and stress-free mode
>> of
>>
>> travel.
>>
>> This indeed is the situation in many cities in Europe and while we
>> have
>>
>> no
>>
>> qualms about importing western concepts (English medium education,
>>
>>
>> wearing
>>
>> suits and tie however uncomfortable they may be in our weather,
>>
>> listening to
>>
>> western music, eating the big Mac (ughhh) and even importing
>>
>> Cheerleaders
>>
>> for our newly formed Cricket Series) why do we suddenly start
>> protesting when our capital city tries to copy a Western/ Latin
>> American idea of excellent bus system/BRT calling it a foreign
>> concept??????The need is to publicise wider benefits of public
>> transport and to reach
>>
>> the
>>
>> *majority *of citizens who are users/potential users of *bus based
>>
>>
>> public
>>
>> transport, cycling and walking* in the city. (It is they who will
>>
>>
>> benefit
>>
>> most from a good BRT)It is this huge majority of commuters who will
>> have the opportunity of breaking free from the shackles of our  
>> present
>> horrendous conditions of urban traffic.So let's not worry too much
>> about the high pitched screams coming from
>>
>> the
>>
>> pampered lot of car users (and to some extent from two wheelers)
>>
>> protesting
>>
>> against dedicated BRT lanes taking away *their* road space, and
>> let's
>>
>> reach
>>
>> the gagged-majority who have been at the receiving end of the stick
>> ever since our cities became car-dominated *and if necessary bring
>> them on
>>
>> the
>>
>> roads to block the MV lanes and put the personal cars in their
>> place.*Does this sound extreme? Not when contrasted with the obscene
>> arrogant
>>
>> rant
>>
>> coming from Mr Chandan Mitra - representing the car
>>
>> lobby/media/politician
>>
>> clique on the recent CNN IBN TV report about the mess accompanying
>> the
>>
>> BRT
>>
>> trials in Delhi.-- SujitOn Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Abhay
>> Patil <abhay.patil at gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Looks like BRTS in Delhi has reached a flash point. From the
>> visuals
>>
>> (CNN
>>
>> IBN, newspapers) it looks like Delhi's implementation is no better
>> than Pune. Empty BRTS lanes, sloppy junctions, ordinary bus stops and
>> so
>>
>> on. I
>>
>> don't know what went amiss in the capital. Sheila Dixit has
>> promised
>>
>> that
>>
>> she would make an all out effort to remove the glitches in a few
>> weeks. Most important - she has said that she would not hesitate to
>> drop the project if they are unable to get their act together right
>> away.On a positive note - everybody is looking at BRTS now. On a
>> negative
>>
>> note
>>
>> - it is appears to be quite a tall order to fix it. Given the ugly
>>
>>
>> traffic
>>
>> jams and vociferousness of folks like journalist MP Chandan Mitra -
>> it
>>
>> is
>>
>> quite likely that the baby would be thrown out with the bath water!
>>
>>
>> And,
>>
>> that would have serious repercussions on BRTS in other cities. I
>> can
>>
>> not
>>
>> imagine the cacophony that would ensue once that happens...-Abhay
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT
>> NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
>> YAHOOGROUPS.Please go to
>> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the
>> real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups
>> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
>> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you
>> can). Apologies for the confusing
>> arrangement.========================================================= 
>> =======
>>
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>> countries (the 'Global South').
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via  
YAHOOGROUPS.

Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss  
to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The  
yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post  
to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it  
seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,  
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing  
countries (the 'Global South').