[sustran] Re: Example of why BRTs often take too long

[bruun at seas.upenn.edu]

Pardo

I think that it would be safe to say that many projects never even  
make it onto
an official list by any planning authority due to the lack of  
confidence that it will
be possible to get control of the RoW. So it is quite safe to say "often".

But, of course, I agree with everyone who says that a study of how  
long projects get postponed and for
what reasons is highly worthwhile. It would only need to be a  
metastudy, as a lot of information is already
published. Some additional effort would be needed to identify how  
often projects never even get officially
proposed due to belief that the effort will not come to fruition.

Eric Bruun


Quoting Pardo <carlosfpardo at gmail.com>:

> What would "often" mean in this context? And what milestones would  
> determine the "being built" beginning and end? It would be great to  
> do a real comparison after having defined these two issues. We  
> normally do generalizations of this particular issue without the  
> full set of data (either brt or metro sympathizers).
>
> Pardo
>
> Typed on keyboard projected onto a glass surface. Please excuse typos.
>
> On 22/06/2011, at 17:54, bruun at seas.upenn.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> The attached article is an example of why I say that the advantage  
>> of BRT being built quicker
>> than rail is often only hypothetical. This decision took many years  
>> despite the fact that
>> this is a very busy bus route. Eric Bruun
>> <L_A_ Council OKs bus-only lanes.doc>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>>
>> ================================================================
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,  
>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing  
>> countries (the 'Global South').
>
>