<html> <body> 8 February 2006 I agree with Karl. In Indian cities too wherever BRT is being hesitatingly (Govt prefers the high cost Metro for obvious reasons) implemented (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Pune) the design comprises a central lane for BRT buses, with safe lanes for bicycles and pedestrians on the sides. Major credit for this must go to Dr Geetam Tiwari and Dr Dinesh Mohan of TRIPP, IIT Delhi who have been tirelessly advocating the need for inclusion of these vulnerable modes of traffic (walking and cycling) in planning the road design. In fact at least in such cases, it is the possibility of BRT that may ultimately make the roads in Pune safe for walking and cycling. As the once "city of cyclists" we are looking forward to speedy (and meticulous) implementation of BRT. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India At 09:44 AM 2/8/2006, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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@list.jca.apc.org [<a href="mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org" eudora="autourl"> mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org</a>] 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 </blockquote>Sustainable Urban Transport --------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan Member PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 Email: <sujit@vsnl.com>, <sujitjp@gmail.com> -----------------------------------------------------</body> </html>